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 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <65d82a89-f7d6-4252-85aa-dfbd17561ed9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394683 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:46:33 AM 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 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. And your point is what? THAT was your first post to O.B. in this thread. > Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are > *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. Do you misspell "anus"? :-) > Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean > sheet just by entering a different thread. That's correct, and you have proven your abusive and asinine behavior long ago. But I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. You, however, are unwilling to do so. That's another sign of autism. > You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. > So suck it up, the pair of you. “I’m allergic to stupidity. I break out in sarcasm.” – Rebels Market And believing that diffraction is caused by gravitational effects IS stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 20:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5g8a.bhs.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394704 |
Gary Harnagel MD 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$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/24. > > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > > You wrote: > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > > O.B. wrote: > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > > And you replied: > > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2016/09/20 respectively. Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean sheet just by entering a different thread. You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. So suck it up, the pair of you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 17:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsuko7$bmb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394744 |
On 10/3/2016 3:35 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. > So suck it up, the pair of you. And you acknowledge your own abusiveness. I think it's going to be sufficient going forward that any time you make a comment on any thread in a physics group, the reply will simply be a link to your three-page "work". Then people can get all the giggles out of their systems right from the outset and not bother with you further. Surely you won't mind continuing the display of your fingerpainting, considering how proud you are of it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5o2a.ept.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394751 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----surreptitiously snipped text restored---- > * Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > * > Ned Latham wrote: > * > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > * > > > Ned Latham wrote: > * > > > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > * > > > > > > * > > > > > You started it, > * > > > > > * > > > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > * > > > > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > * > > > > dated 2015/09/12. > * > > > > * > > > Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. > * > > > * > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > * > > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > * > > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/24. > * > > * > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > * > > * > You wrote: > * > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > * > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > * > > * > O.B. wrote: > * > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > * > > * > And you replied: > * > > * > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > * > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. > * > * Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated > * 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2016/09/20 respectively. > * > * Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are > * *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. > * Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean > * sheet just by entering a different thread. > * > > You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. > > So suck it up, the pair of you. > > And you acknowledge your own abusiveness. In response to your abuses, which include the one many profess to despise but use anyway, and which I refrain from: mendacity. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 15:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b1ad1631-1d06-489d-a07a-f20f458f6954@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394744 |
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:35:30 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > > > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > > > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/24. > > > > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > > > > You wrote: > > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > > > > O.B. wrote: > > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > > > > And you replied: > > > > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > > > > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. > > Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated > 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2016/09/20 respectively. Still irrelevant. All Bodkin did was point out that valid analysis methods exist today. Apparently, YOU took GREAT offense at that correct remark and YOU started the resulting tumult. > Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are > *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. > Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean > sheet just by entering a different thread. So you come in with a chip on your shoulder. Tough! Suck it up like a man instead of the crazy nutjob that you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5o4h.ept.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394752 |
Gary Harnagel MD wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Gary Harnagel wroteL > > > > > > > > > > You started it, > > > > > > > > That's a lie. You started it. See your message > > > > <5714921e-9188-4a8a-9f37-47cf7b76c0d6@googlegroups.com> > > > > dated 2015/09/12. > > > > > > Irrelevant. YOU started it by dissing Odd Bodkin. > > > > You're wrong again, liar. I never start it. Between > > him and me, it was *he* who started it. See his message > > <locmln$ujn$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/24. > > THIS is where it started, dishonest weasel: > > You wrote: > > > > We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, > > > > physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. > > O.B. wrote: > > > As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? > > And you replied: > > > However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? > So YOU started it and you NEVER let up after that. Wrong again, you lying maggot. Those posts are dated 2016/09/19, 2016/09/20 and 2016/09/20 respectively. Observe, you retarded bullshitter, that those dates are *after* the dates of the messages originating the animus. Get it into your pointy little head: you don't get a clean sheet just by entering a different thread. You and Odd Bodkin are known for your abusiveness. So suck it up, the pair of you. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstq1p$nav$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394557 |
On 10/1/2016 9:40 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > 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. Sorry, but if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have is worthless. No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in this. > > ----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? There are certainly more of them in comparable volumes in lead. Use your own formula for the gravitational pull. Do only the electrons contribute? Oh, look at that, I see an m1 and an m2 and a line where it it says those are the masses of the two bodies. What are the two bodies in your description of diffraction? Well, let's see, your words: "Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond it are gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend towards it, with those courses passing closest to it being bent the most." So the two bodies in gravitational attraction are the photons and the barrier, and I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. Does this seem like a problem to you? > > ----snip---- > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5lro.bhs.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394694 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > 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 between "wave interference phenomenon" > > > > and "phenomenon resembling wave interference". > > > > > > 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. > > Sorry, but if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative > prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have > is worthless. > > No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in this. Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. > > > 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? > > There are certainly more of them in comparable volumes in lead. Use your > own formula for the gravitational pull. Do only the electrons > contribute? Oh, look at that, I see an m1 and an m2 and a line where it > it says those are the masses of the two bodies. What are the two bodies > in your description of diffraction? Well, let's see, your words: > "Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond it are > gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend towards it, with > those courses passing closest to it being bent the most." So the two > bodies in gravitational attraction are the photons and the barrier, and > I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without > changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, > according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction > should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. > > Does this seem like a problem to you? Nope. Ever heard of diffusion?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5m8o.el5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394694 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > 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 between "wave interference > > > > phenomenon" > > > > and "phenomenon resembling wave interference". > > > > > > 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. > > Sorry, but if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative > prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have > is worthless. > > No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in > this. Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. > > > 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? > > There are certainly more of them in comparable volumes in lead. Use > your > own formula for the gravitational pull. Do only the electrons > contribute? Oh, look at that, I see an m1 and an m2 and a line where > it > it says those are the masses of the two bodies. What are the two > bodies > in your description of diffraction? Well, let's see, your words: > "Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond it are > gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend towards it, > with > those courses passing closest to it being bent the most." So the two > bodies in gravitational attraction are the photons and the barrier, > and > I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without > changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, > according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction > should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. > > Does this seem like a problem to you? Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 09:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt5olt$1d50$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394755 |
On 10/3/2016 5:18 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> 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 between "wave interference >>>>> phenomenon" >>>>> and "phenomenon resembling wave interference". >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Sorry, but if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative >> prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have >> is worthless. >> >> No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in >> this. > > Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the experimental tests of evolution? There's a collection published by Nature. Fascinating studies of how specific and (in a few cases) quantitative predictions of natural selection were confronted with observations. I read it as part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. I see that you are completely unaware of them. Not my problem. > >>>> 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? >> >> There are certainly more of them in comparable volumes in lead. Use >> your >> own formula for the gravitational pull. Do only the electrons >> contribute? Oh, look at that, I see an m1 and an m2 and a line where >> it >> it says those are the masses of the two bodies. What are the two >> bodies >> in your description of diffraction? Well, let's see, your words: >> "Photons passing close to a barrier onto a screen placed beyond it are >> gravitationally attracted to it and their courses bend towards it, >> with >> those courses passing closest to it being bent the most." So the two >> bodies in gravitational attraction are the photons and the barrier, >> and >> I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without >> changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, >> according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction >> should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. >> >> Does this seem like a problem to you? > > Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? > Where does refractive index come in your formula for gravitational attraction of photons? Where is refractive index discussed in your explanation of diffraction? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 03:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnve47o.sds.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395003 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snup---- > > > if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative > > > prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have > > > is worthless. > > > > > > No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in > > > this. > > > > Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. > > Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the experimental > tests of evolution? There's a collection published by Nature. > Fascinating studies of how specific and (in a few cases) quantitative > predictions of natural selection were confronted with observations. I > read it as part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. I > see that you are completely unaware of them. How can one be aware of that which does not exist? > Not my problem. If you're talking about the mitochondrial clock and various associated ideas and predictions, it is, because the whole mish-mish is nonsense. ----snip---- > > > I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without > > > changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, > > > according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction > > > should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. > > > > > > Does this seem like a problem to you? > > > > Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? > > Where does refractive index come in your formula for gravitational > attraction of photons? Where is refractive index discussed in your > explanation of diffraction? Fuck, you're thick. I reminded you of the term to put into your pointy little head that the varying changes of direction in refractive lenses just might be the consequence of differences in the densities of the materials. Do you *never* think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 07:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt85cb$1rtt$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395061 |
On 10/6/2016 10:05 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snup---- > >>>> if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative >>>> prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have >>>> is worthless. >>>> >>>> No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in >>>> this. >>> >>> Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. >> >> Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the experimental >> tests of evolution? There's a collection published by Nature. >> Fascinating studies of how specific and (in a few cases) quantitative >> predictions of natural selection were confronted with observations. I >> read it as part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. I >> see that you are completely unaware of them. > > How can one be aware of that which does not exist? Bullshit. I'll not waste my time with you here. When other references were presented for a different subject, you simply said you weren't interested in reading them. Same would happen here. > >> Not my problem. > > If you're talking about the mitochondrial clock and various associated > ideas and predictions, it is, because the whole mish-mish is nonsense. Nothing in those papers is about the mitochondrial clock. > > ----snip---- > >>>> I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without >>>> changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, >>>> according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction >>>> should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. >>>> >>>> Does this seem like a problem to you? >>> >>> Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? >> >> Where does refractive index come in your formula for gravitational >> attraction of photons? Where is refractive index discussed in your >> explanation of diffraction? > > Fuck, you're thick. I reminded you of the term to put into your pointy > little head that the varying changes of direction in refractive > lenses just might be the consequence of differences in the densities > of the materials. Still isn't in your "work" here: http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html I offer this URL once again so that if there are other readers to this conversation, they can go there and have a good chuckle. > > Do you *never* think? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 13:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvfa1k.jr3.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395093 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > ----snup---- > > > > > > > if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative > > > > > prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have > > > > > is worthless. > > > > > > > > > > No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. > > > > > > Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the experimental > > > tests of evolution? There's a collection published by Nature. > > > Fascinating studies of how specific and (in a few cases) quantitative > > > predictions of natural selection were confronted with observations. I > > > read it as part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. I > > > see that you are completely unaware of them. > > > > How can one be aware of that which does not exist? > > Bullshit. Nope. That exists. But quantitative predictions do not exist; in either theory of evolution. ----misrepresentatuve and prejudicial bullshit snipped---- > > > Not my problem. > > > > If you're talking about the mitochondrial clock and various associated > > ideas and predictions, it is, because the whole mish-mish is nonsense. > > Nothing in those papers is about the mitochondrial clock. Oj, goody. > > > > > I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without > > > > > changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, > > > > > according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction > > > > > should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. > > > > > > > > > > Does this seem like a problem to you? > > > > > > > > Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? > > > > > > Where does refractive index come in your formula for gravitational > > > attraction of photons? Where is refractive index discussed in your > > > explanation of diffraction? > > > > Fuck, you're thick. I reminded you of the term to put into your pointy > > little head that the varying changes of direction in refractive > > lenses just might be the consequence of differences in the densities > > of the materials. > > Still isn't in your "work" here: > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html There you go again, blundering around in a fog of incomprehesion. That bit above that you think should "seem like a problem" to me is part of the theory, you bumbling clot. There's no need to mention refractive index in the paper because it's just another way of saying that refractive changes of direction vary. As I said earlier, do you *never* think? ----peurile sneering snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt8bqp$9mq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395103 |
On 10/7/2016 8:50 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>> ----snup---- >>> >>>>>> if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative >>>>>> prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have >>>>>> is worthless. >>>>>> >>>>>> No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in >>>>>> this. >>>>> >>>>> Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the experimental >>>> tests of evolution? There's a collection published by Nature. >>>> Fascinating studies of how specific and (in a few cases) quantitative >>>> predictions of natural selection were confronted with observations. I >>>> read it as part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. I >>>> see that you are completely unaware of them. >>> >>> How can one be aware of that which does not exist? >> >> Bullshit. > > Nope. That exists. But quantitative predictions do not exist; > in either theory of evolution. And that's wrong, which you will see if you read the experimental papers. Perhaps what's wrong is that you say that you have read The Origin of the Species, and perhaps some stuff by Gould, as though that represents the complete explication of the theory of natural selection. The authors of the experimental papers reference the work of other biologists who have used the theory of natural selection to make those quantitative predictions. Regardless of biology, it is also true that in PHYSICS, which is the discipline relevant here, it is a firm requirement of theories in physics that they provide quantitative predictions. Which yours does not. > > ----misrepresentatuve and prejudicial bullshit snipped---- > >>>> Not my problem. >>> >>> If you're talking about the mitochondrial clock and various associated >>> ideas and predictions, it is, because the whole mish-mish is nonsense. >> >> Nothing in those papers is about the mitochondrial clock. > > Oj, goody. > >>>>>> I asked what happens if you change the mass of the barrier without >>>>>> changing the dimension of the barrier by changing the material? Why, >>>>>> according to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the attraction >>>>>> should change? Why? Because one of the masses has changed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this seem like a problem to you? >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? >>>> >>>> Where does refractive index come in your formula for gravitational >>>> attraction of photons? Where is refractive index discussed in your >>>> explanation of diffraction? >>> >>> Fuck, you're thick. I reminded you of the term to put into your pointy >>> little head that the varying changes of direction in refractive >>> lenses just might be the consequence of differences in the densities >>> of the materials. >> >> Still isn't in your "work" here: >> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html > > There you go again, blundering around in a fog of incomprehesion. > That bit above that you think should "seem like a problem" to me > is part of the theory, you bumbling clot. There's no need to mention > refractive index in the paper because it's just another way of > saying that refractive changes of direction vary. If it's important to explain the Michelson Morley results in terms of a particle theory, it should be described in the theory. If it's not important, then why bring it up here in a newsgroup? > > As I said earlier, do you *never* think? > > ----peurile sneering snipped---- > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvg2ev.stt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395106 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > ----snup---- > > > > > > > > > > > if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative > > > > > > > prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have > > > > > > > is worthless. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in > > > > > > > this. > > > > > > > > > > > > Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the > > > > > experimental tests of evolution? There's a collection > > > > > published by Nature. Fascinating studies of how specific > > > > > and (in a few cases) quantitative predictions of natural > > > > > selection were confronted with observations. I read it as > > > > > part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. > > > > > I see that you are completely unaware of them. > > > > > > > > How can one be aware of that which does not exist? > > > > > > Bullshit. > > > > Nope. That exists. But quantitative predictions do not exist; > > in either theory of evolution. > > And that's wrong, which you will see if you read the experimental > papers. Perhaps what's wrong is that you say that you have read > The Origin of the Species, and perhaps some stuff by Gould, as > though that represents the complete explication of the theory of > natural selection. If you're going to argue add-ons, you're no longer talking about Darwin's and Gould's theories. Your whole argument is spurious. Look at your claim above, and my response to it. > The authors of the experimental papers reference the work of other > biologists who have used the theory of natural selection to make > those quantitative predictions. Let's see one, liar. > Regardless of biology, it is also true that in PHYSICS, which is the > discipline relevant here, it is a firm requirement of theories in > physics that they provide quantitative predictions. Aw, look at the sook, hedging his bets. You made a blanket claim, you maggot. Face up to it. > Which yours does not. Actually that's not true. Yet again, you show your aversedion to fact. ----snip---- > > > > > > > I asked what happens if you change the mass of the > > > > > > > barrier without changing the dimension of the > > > > > > > barrier by changing the material? Why, according > > > > > > > to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the > > > > > > > attraction should change? Why? Because one of the > > > > > > > masses has changed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Does this seem like a problem to you? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? > > > > > > > > > > Where does refractive index come in your formula for > > > > > gravitational attraction of photons? Where is refractive > > > > > index discussed in your explanation of diffraction? > > > > > > > > Fuck, you're thick. I reminded you of the term to put > > > > into your pointy little head that the varying changes > > > > of direction in refractive lenses just might be the > > > > consequence of differences in the densities of the > > > > materials. > > > > > > Still isn't in your "work" here: > > > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html > > > > There you go again, blundering around in a fog of incomprehesion. > > That bit above that you think should "seem like a problem" to me > > is part of the theory, you bumbling clot. There's no need to mention > > refractive index in the paper because it's just another way of > > saying that refractive changes of direction vary. > > If it's important to explain the Michelson Morley results in terms > of a particle theory, I didn't say that, moron. Learn to read. As I said earlier, do you *never* think? ----peurile sneering snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt93ma$1pcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395142 |
On 10/7/2016 3:47 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ----snup---- >>>>> >>>>>>>> if you don't have a theory that can make a quantitative >>>>>>>> prediction until physicists make measurements, then what you have >>>>>>>> is worthless. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No successful theory in the history of science has been lacking in >>>>>>>> this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gould's theory of punctuated evolution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but that too. Have you not read any papers on the >>>>>> experimental tests of evolution? There's a collection >>>>>> published by Nature. Fascinating studies of how specific >>>>>> and (in a few cases) quantitative predictions of natural >>>>>> selection were confronted with observations. I read it as >>>>>> part of the standard readings for a freshman biology class. >>>>>> I see that you are completely unaware of them. >>>>> >>>>> How can one be aware of that which does not exist? >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>> >>> Nope. That exists. But quantitative predictions do not exist; >>> in either theory of evolution. >> >> And that's wrong, which you will see if you read the experimental >> papers. Perhaps what's wrong is that you say that you have read >> The Origin of the Species, and perhaps some stuff by Gould, as >> though that represents the complete explication of the theory of >> natural selection. > > If you're going to argue add-ons, you're no longer talking about > Darwin's and Gould's theories. Bullshit. Furthermore, the theory does not belong to the originator. Nor is the original paper to be considered the comprehensive presentation of the theory. Einstein's 1905 paper on relativity does not represent the entirety of special relativity. Furthermore, there were only three testable predictions in that paper; whereas special relativity alone has had literally hundreds of testable predictions that have been compared to experiment. People like Einstein and Darwin are credited for presenting the SEMINAL work for the theory, not the entirety of the theory itself. This is known by ANYONE in the sciences. > Your whole argument is spurious. > Look at your claim above, and my response to it. > >> The authors of the experimental papers reference the work of other >> biologists who have used the theory of natural selection to make >> those quantitative predictions. > > Let's see one, liar. Look 'em up. I've given you the place to look. You say you're unaware of these papers. (Actually, you've said that they don't exist, but that's just because you're not aware of them.) Onus is not on others to correct your ignorance. YOU have to seek the information out. Don't want to? Fine, then in ignorance you'll stay, and your "work" will continue to be ignored. > >> Regardless of biology, it is also true that in PHYSICS, which is the >> discipline relevant here, it is a firm requirement of theories in >> physics that they provide quantitative predictions. > > Aw, look at the sook, hedging his bets. You made a blanket claim, > you maggot. Face up to it. > >> Which yours does not. > > Actually that's not true. Yet again, you show your aversedion to fact. Not ONE quantitative claim that can be compared to experiment. Prove that statement wrong. > > ----snip---- > >>>>>>>> I asked what happens if you change the mass of the >>>>>>>> barrier without changing the dimension of the >>>>>>>> barrier by changing the material? Why, according >>>>>>>> to YOUR formula of gravitational attraction, the >>>>>>>> attraction should change? Why? Because one of the >>>>>>>> masses has changed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does this seem like a problem to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope. Ever heard the term "refractive index"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Where does refractive index come in your formula for >>>>>> gravitational attraction of photons? Where is refractive >>>>>> index discussed in your explanation of diffraction? >>>>> >>>>> Fuck, you're thick. I reminded you of the term to put >>>>> into your pointy little head that the varying changes >>>>> of direction in refractive lenses just might be the >>>>> consequence of differences in the densities of the >>>>> materials. >>>> >>>> Still isn't in your "work" here: >>>> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html >>> >>> There you go again, blundering around in a fog of incomprehesion. >>> That bit above that you think should "seem like a problem" to me >>> is part of the theory, you bumbling clot. There's no need to mention >>> refractive index in the paper because it's just another way of >>> saying that refractive changes of direction vary. >> >> If it's important to explain the Michelson Morley results in terms >> of a particle theory, > > I didn't say that, moron. Learn to read. > > As I said earlier, do you *never* think? > > ----peurile sneering snipped---- > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 14:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvi11t.lh7.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #395148 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > If you're going to argue add-ons, you're no longer talking about > > Darwin's and Gould's theories. > > Bullshit. That's your method, liar. > Furthermore, the theory does not belong to the originator. Didn't say it does, moron. ----snip---- > People like Einstein and Darwin are credited for > presenting the SEMINAL work for the theory, not the entirety of the > theory itself. This is known by ANYONE in the sciences. I never said or implied otherwise, moron. > > Your whole argument is spurious. > > Look at your claim above, and my response to it. The simple fact is, you moronic fuckwit, that you are claiming a lack of quantitative prediction as ground for rejecting mu theory and weaselling about that same lack in Darwin's presentation of his theory, and that same lack again in Gould's presentation oif his variation on Darwin's theory. You're a blundering, moronic, hypocritical special pleader. ----snip---- > > > Regardless of biology, it is also true that in PHYSICS, which is the > > > discipline relevant here, it is a firm requirement of theories in > > > physics that they provide quantitative predictions. > > > > Aw, look at the sook, hedging his bets. You made a blanket claim, > > you maggot. Face up to it. Can't do it? Betcha can't guess how little that surprises me. > > > Which yours does not. > > > > Actually that's not true. Yet again, you show your aversedion to fact. > > Not ONE quantitative claim that can be compared to experiment. Prove > that statement wrong. http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/exprts.html The third of the suggested experiments. Also the footnote. Suck it up, you lying maggot. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 03:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurlnm.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394255 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
----snip----
> > It's not what I *did* say, but it makes the same point, which I note
> > you've avoided responding to; ie, university textbooks are no better
> > than high school text books when it comes to scientific accuracy.
>
> I disagree with that statement.
Of course you do: your prejudice would be unsustainable otherwise.
> The pithy statement from the TV
> personality notwithstanding.
Quit the posturing. That "TV personality" is a tenured professor
of physics. What are you?
> Note also that it depends on whether
> you're talking about a textbook from 1960 or one from 2015.
*He*, quite obviously, was talking about those current in 2013.
> > > > of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of
> > > > matter, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that
> > > > blesses university texts.
> >
> > There's the point. See it?
>
> What "fame"? What "blessing"?
You do love spreading an exchange out to produce incoherence,
don't you? Makes your special pleading so much easier hmm?
> * > > > > Surely you know that high school books are not
> * > > > > famous for their scientific accuracy.
^
|
THAT fame, you weasel.
----snip----
Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsloem$18vm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394327 |
On 9/29/2016 10:07 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>> It's not what I *did* say, but it makes the same point, which I note >>> you've avoided responding to; ie, university textbooks are no better >>> than high school text books when it comes to scientific accuracy. >> >> I disagree with that statement. > > Of course you do: your prejudice would be unsustainable otherwise. > >> The pithy statement from the TV >> personality notwithstanding. > > Quit the posturing. That "TV personality" is a tenured professor > of physics. What are you? Someone who has read a lot of physics books. And I can tell you that how physicists speak on TV is a WHOLE LOT different than how they speak in textbooks. For the simple reason that their audiences are different, and the intent of the medium is different. TV shows, even if they feature physicists, are NOT INTENDED FOR ACCURATE EXPLICATIONS OF PHYSICS. > >> Note also that it depends on whether >> you're talking about a textbook from 1960 or one from 2015. > > *He*, quite obviously, was talking about those current in 2013. > >>>>> of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of >>>>> matter, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that >>>>> blesses university texts. >>> >>> There's the point. See it? >> >> What "fame"? What "blessing"? > > You do love spreading an exchange out to produce incoherence, > don't you? Makes your special pleading so much easier hmm? > >> * > > > > Surely you know that high school books are not >> * > > > > famous for their scientific accuracy. > > ^ > | > THAT fame, you weasel. > > ----snip---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 03:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurmd1.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394255 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > > > > > That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. > > > > > > > > > > > > So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: > > > > > > you know full well that most authors use the term "rest mass" > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. > > > > > > > > Oh, boy: he said, she said. > > > > > > No, this isn't between you and me. > > > > Yes it is. "Some do, most don't": YOUR words. Without an > > exhaustive survey of all writings on the subject, it's > > entirely a matter of your opinion vs mine as to which > > group is the more numerous. > > No, it isn't. Wrong. > The exhaustive catalog of writings is out there. It's out of date. > All one > has to do is to go out there and look through them. These are what are > called "documented facts". If there is a dispute over what the > documented facts are, then all that's needed is for both parties to go > research the documented facts. I believe I've read more textbooks than > you on this subject, Your belief is not good enough. > given what you've said already is the basis for > your statements. I don't owe you a count. I didn't say you do. > You owe yourself a better look at documented facts. The matter at hand here is a trivioal one, undeserving of the effort required to resolve the issue. Moreover, it's enough for my point that, as YOU said "some do" use the term "rest mass". With "most authors" all I did was overstate the case. Your "technical term" card remains spurious because the term "invariant mass" is not invariably the one used. ----snipo---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web