Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397787 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-06 02:02 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 15:48 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 02:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 11:29 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 12:28 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-06 04:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 05:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:08 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:42 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-06 15:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:25 -0800
Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 21:25 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:46 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 23:10 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 08:35 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:19 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:33 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:07 +0100
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 07:20 -0800
Re: Imbecile Peter Riedt perseveres "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 11:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:33 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 02:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-07 03:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 17:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 17:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 19:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 19:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 19:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 20:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 23:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-08 03:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:25 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 06:23 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 06:27 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-08 06:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 22:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 22:59 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 10:17 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:31 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-09 02:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 19:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 01:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:10 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:37 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-08 08:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 10:43 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-08 20:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:43 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 07:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 08:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 11:03 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-09 09:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:46 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 17:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:14 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 09:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 03:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 03:09 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-09 22:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 12:25 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-10 03:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 04:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-10 15:26 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 16:13 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-10 08:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-11-10 16:05 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 10:55 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 21:54 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 10:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-10 06:20 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-08 18:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-08 23:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:36 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 04:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 14:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 10:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 04:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 13:57 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 16:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:30 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:47 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-10 16:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-10 17:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 07:40 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:24 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:51 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 07:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:40 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 08:11 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 17:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 06:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:40 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-09 07:28 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 16:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 02:48 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-09 21:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 07:27 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:45 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 17:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-10 19:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-10 20:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:50 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 13:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 23:04 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 11:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 05:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 05:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 11:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 13:53 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 12:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 14:26 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 13:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:21 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-11 13:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-11 12:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 13:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 15:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 06:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:31 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 08:16 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 13:08 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 06:14 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 09:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-11 12:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 14:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-11 23:45 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 05:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 10:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-11-14 05:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 06:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:52 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 12:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 16:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 14:41 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 09:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:34 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 11:38 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 12:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 17:06 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:27 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:36 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 21:59 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> - 2016-11-18 22:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-11-19 09:14 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 06:02 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:08 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 05:06 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:39 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-23 08:54 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:03 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:15 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-27 07:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-28 02:23 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:19 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 18:15 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-13 04:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-12 20:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 05:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 08:10 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 23:12 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-17 17:57 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 13:01 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 12:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> - 2016-11-17 22:08 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:32 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:05 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 04:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:12 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-23 15:55 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:16 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:13 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-21 17:07 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 11:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:30 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-19 05:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 15:06 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-21 05:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:18 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 11:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-23 09:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-24 07:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 10:20 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-17 22:24 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 20:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-17 20:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 05:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 08:29 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-18 07:32 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 09:36 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 07:44 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-13 22:09 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 04:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:33 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 06:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:51 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 17:43 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 10:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-14 19:28 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 16:49 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 12:32 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 13:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-15 14:38 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 15:25 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-15 14:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 09:25 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-17 08:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 10:34 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-14 12:21 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 14:05 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-16 10:32 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 17:03 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 18:17 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Kieth Staudt <KiethS@StaudtInstitute.info> - 2016-11-16 17:26 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 10:13 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 21:05 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck sdf <sdf@sdf.sdf> - 2016-11-17 20:31 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 21:57 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Norberto Haman <norberman@norberman.info> - 2016-11-20 22:33 +0000
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:14 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 09:22 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:43 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 04:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 04:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 13:56 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 05:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 14:45 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 07:45 +0100
Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-06 05:50 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Albert2 <Alber@2.invalid> - 2016-11-07 12:20 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:33 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2016-11-07 17:30 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 09:42 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 09:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-07 09:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-07 12:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:11 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-11-07 15:28 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-11-07 22:17 -0600
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 20:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 08:01 +0100
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 15:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 16:56 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 16:59 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:54 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 17:57 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 19:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 20:31 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:45 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 12:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-12 14:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 06:01 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-13 07:42 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-13 05:53 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 15:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 11:51 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-14 04:29 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 20:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-13 20:16 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 12:49 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:15 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:33 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:36 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 10:39 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:18 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 11:19 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:00 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:03 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 14:47 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:05 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:07 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:09 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 15:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:11 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 15:26 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:12 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:52 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-18 17:48 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 11:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 12:17 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 14:22 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:40 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:46 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 21:04 -0800
Re: Kepler, Bullialdus, Newton, Einstein and Planck numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 15:48 -0800
Page 8 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 18 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 09:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o04nr3$1a0v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398258 |
On 11/11/2016 7:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 12:38:18 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/9/2016 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:28:33 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>>> Note that NONE of the light is lost by the time it gets to earth. It is >>>> just more spread out. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> If a star emits light by photons, they will disperse spherically and the >>> distance between the photons will increase according to the sqare of the >>> distance. >> >> Yes. >> >>> !2 billion LY is too great a distance for light to impact as >>> a group of photons; their density has been diluted too much. >> >> I don't think so. Have you done the calculation. >> >>> Light is >>> transmitted by wawes, not photons. >>> >> >> Sorry, but that's refuted by experiment. > > Sorry that's not been refuted by experiment. > Yes, it has, Ken. Your profound ignorance of experimental results is your problem, not anyone else's. You have a bad habit of insisting that anything you weren't aware of does not exist. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 12:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5734457-f4d1-4591-969b-bc3ec17bd10d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398275 |
On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:24:21 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/11/2016 7:07 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 12:38:18 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/9/2016 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:28:33 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> > >>>> Note that NONE of the light is lost by the time it gets to earth. It is > >>>> just more spread out. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> If a star emits light by photons, they will disperse spherically and the > >>> distance between the photons will increase according to the sqare of the > >>> distance. > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >>> !2 billion LY is too great a distance for light to impact as > >>> a group of photons; their density has been diluted too much. > >> > >> I don't think so. Have you done the calculation. > >> > >>> Light is > >>> transmitted by wawes, not photons. > >>> > >> > >> Sorry, but that's refuted by experiment. > > > > Sorry that's not been refuted by experiment. > > > > Yes, it has, Ken. Your profound ignorance of experimental results is > your problem, not anyone else's. You have a bad habit of insisting that > anything you weren't aware of does not exist. Idiot.....a photon is a wave-packet. The number of waves in a wave-packet represents the energy of the photon. A wave-packet (a photon) that is composed of shorter waves has higher energy than a than a wave-packet(a photon) that is composed of waves that has longer wavelengths. The data in the following link show that photon composed of longer wavelength then 683 nm will not be able to eject photoelectron from the metal sodium. Gee you are stupid. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 14:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o059de$9qs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398294 |
On 11/11/2016 2:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, November 11, 2016 at 10:24:21 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 7:07 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 12:38:18 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/9/2016 6:27 PM, Peter Riedt wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 9:28:33 PM UTC+8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Note that NONE of the light is lost by the time it gets to earth. It is >>>>>> just more spread out. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> If a star emits light by photons, they will disperse spherically and the >>>>> distance between the photons will increase according to the sqare of the >>>>> distance. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> !2 billion LY is too great a distance for light to impact as >>>>> a group of photons; their density has been diluted too much. >>>> >>>> I don't think so. Have you done the calculation. >>>> >>>>> Light is >>>>> transmitted by wawes, not photons. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, but that's refuted by experiment. >>> >>> Sorry that's not been refuted by experiment. >>> >> >> Yes, it has, Ken. Your profound ignorance of experimental results is >> your problem, not anyone else's. You have a bad habit of insisting that >> anything you weren't aware of does not exist. > > Idiot.....a photon is a wave-packet. Nope. It's a quantum field. > The number of waves in a wave-packet represents the energy of the photon. That is CERTAINLY not true. > A wave-packet (a photon) that is composed of shorter waves has higher > energy than a than a wave-packet(a photon) that is composed of waves that > has longer wavelengths. It is true that a shorter wavelength corresponds to more energy. It is incorrect to say that the the more energy, the more wavelengths in the wave packet. > > The data in the following link show that photon composed of longer wavelength > then 683 nm will not be able to eject photoelectron from the metal sodium. Yes, it says that. It says NOTHING about a wave packet. YOU introduced that, and it's wrong. > Gee you are stupid. > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod2.html >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-11 23:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <Q8udnfJgwvb2MbvFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398296 |
On 11/11/16 11/11/16 2:24 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/11/2016 2:06 PM, kenseto wrote: >> Idiot.....a photon is a wave-packet. > > Nope. It's a quantum field. Hmmmm. A photon is an EXCITATION of the photon field (which is a quantum field). Like all fields, the photon field is a function on the manifold, and is therefore single-valued at every point. Multiple photons are different excitations of that field. Due to the Lagrangian for the photon field, different excitations have different functional forms; it is the functional form of such excitations that determines their energy, momentum, photon content, spin, etc. As it is a quantum field, there's no requirement that ANY of those properties be sharp (i.e. have a definite value). Being a quantum field, one can use many different basis sets to describe it. One such set consists of excitations with definite energy and momentum -- one finds that the number of photons is not definite (i.e. in this basis you don't know how many photons are present). Another basis set consists of excitations each with a definite number of photons -- one finds that the energy and momentum are not definite (i.e. in this basis you don't know either the total energy or momentum of the collection of photons). In quantum field theory (here QED), there are analogies to and generalizations of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP); the HUP itself holds also: in a basis with definite momentum states the position is unknown, and in a basis with definite positions the momentum is unknown (one can form bases with partly-known momentum and partly-known position). (This is a somewhat loose description, but will serve.) >> The number of waves in a wave-packet represents the energy of the photon. > > That is CERTAINLY not true. Hmmmm. His whole notion of attempting to describe a quantum field or its excitations as a "wave packet" is just plain wrong. As you point out repeatedly, kenseto does not know what he is attempting to talk about. Quantum fields and their excitations are MUCH more complicated.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 05:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec6ff32e-a374-47df-82d0-c327078f2612@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398321 |
On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:45:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/11/16 11/11/16 2:24 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 11/11/2016 2:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > >> Idiot.....a photon is a wave-packet. > > > > Nope. It's a quantum field. > > Hmmmm. A photon is an EXCITATION of the photon field (which is a quantum field). > Like all fields, the photon field is a function on the manifold, and is > therefore single-valued at every point. Multiple photons are different > excitations of that field. Due to the Lagrangian for the photon field, different > excitations have different functional forms; it is the functional form of such > excitations that determines their energy, momentum, photon content, spin, etc. > As it is a quantum field, there's no requirement that ANY of those properties be > sharp (i.e. have a definite value). > > Being a quantum field, one can use many different basis sets to describe it. One > such set consists of excitations with definite energy and momentum -- one finds > that the number of photons is not definite (i.e. in this basis you don't know > how many photons are present). Another basis set consists of excitations each > with a definite number of photons -- one finds that the energy and momentum are > not definite (i.e. in this basis you don't know either the total energy or > momentum of the collection of photons). > > In quantum field theory (here QED), there are analogies to and generalizations > of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP); the HUP itself holds also: in a > basis with definite momentum states the position is unknown, and in a basis with > definite positions the momentum is unknown (one can form bases with partly-known > momentum and partly-known position). > > (This is a somewhat loose description, but will serve.) > > >> The number of waves in a wave-packet represents the energy of the photon. > > > > That is CERTAINLY not true. > > Hmmmm. His whole notion of attempting to describe a quantum field or its > excitations as a "wave packet" is just plain wrong. As you point out repeatedly, > kenseto does not know what he is attempting to talk about. Quantum fields and > their excitations are MUCH more complicated.... My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. A quantum field is the distortion in the E-Matrix and its excitation at a specific point represents the passage of a wave-packet (a photon) at that point. What this mean is that the quantum field theory is a more complicated way of describing the model of Model Mechanics. So your assertion that I am wrong is baseless. Its time for you to learn some new physics instead of telling everybody that all new theories are wrong based on the obsolete quantum field theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 09:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o07ch9$1ek2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398327 |
On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and attached your own meaning. Your theory is untested, and therefore it can't be said to be right or wrong. What is true is that it is expressed in your own private language. > A quantum field is the distortion in the E-Matrix and its excitation at a > specific point represents the passage of a wave-packet (a photon) at that > point. What this mean is that the quantum field theory is a more complicated > way of describing the model of Model Mechanics. If that's true, then you've produced nothing new. > So your assertion that > I am wrong is baseless. Its time for you to learn some new physics instead > of telling everybody that all new theories are wrong based on the obsolete > quantum field theory. Making a simpler description of quantum field theory doesn't make quantum field theory obsolete. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9734be5d-6a23-4960-a46d-c71201327019@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398335 |
9:29 AMOdd Bodkin On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and attached your own meaning. Your theory is untested, and therefore it can't be said to be right or wrong. What is true is that it is expressed in your own private language. Packet http://i64.tinypic.com/2mfeja.jpg Packet Medium http://i68.tinypic.com/2vw69nd.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 10:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f7a0be54-be23-4011-b3d5-1c2216947ab7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398335 |
On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > > To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and > attached your own meaning. No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity that is compatible with all the forces of nature. Also the E-Matrix gives physical explanations for all the weird quantum processes. IOW, the E-Matrix acts as a bridge between QM and relativity and thus unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > Your theory is untested, and therefore it can't be said to be right or > wrong. What is true is that it is expressed in your own private language. It is thoroughly tested all observations agree with Model Mechanics. > > > A quantum field is the distortion in the E-Matrix and its excitation at a > > specific point represents the passage of a wave-packet (a photon) at that > > point. What this mean is that the quantum field theory is a more complicated > > way of describing the model of Model Mechanics. > > If that's true, then you've produced nothing new. It is completely new.....Model Mechanics provides physical model to unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). > > > So your assertion that > > I am wrong is baseless. Its time for you to learn some new physics instead > > of telling everybody that all new theories are wrong based on the obsolete > > quantum field theory. > > Making a simpler description of quantum field theory doesn't make > quantum field theory obsolete. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 07:22 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0cdq1$gun$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398346 |
On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. >> >> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and >> attached your own meaning. > > No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. You are a pretender. > that is compatible with all the forces of nature. Also the E-Matrix gives physical > explanations for all the weird quantum processes. IOW, the E-Matrix acts as a bridge > between QM and relativity and thus unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > >> >> Your theory is untested, and therefore it can't be said to be right or >> wrong. What is true is that it is expressed in your own private language. > > It is thoroughly tested all observations agree with Model Mechanics. > >> >>> A quantum field is the distortion in the E-Matrix and its excitation at a >>> specific point represents the passage of a wave-packet (a photon) at that >>> point. What this mean is that the quantum field theory is a more complicated >>> way of describing the model of Model Mechanics. >> >> If that's true, then you've produced nothing new. > > It is completely new.....Model Mechanics provides physical model to unify all the > forces of nature (including gravity). > >> >>> So your assertion that >>> I am wrong is baseless. Its time for you to learn some new physics instead >>> of telling everybody that all new theories are wrong based on the obsolete >>> quantum field theory. >> >> Making a simpler description of quantum field theory doesn't make >> quantum field theory obsolete. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 05:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7829ef5d-10c8-4e37-bfb5-24fdf86d1902@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398489 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 14 listopada 2016 14:22:12 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, > which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would > dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. Scientists? You're a maker of fine toys , tools, tables AFAIR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 06:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f43ed51b-9ea5-4dea-bdbe-4cbc9071c4ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398489 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > >> > >> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and > >> attached your own meaning. > > > > No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity > > No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, > which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would > dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. Idiot.....we discussed nothing. I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. > > You are a pretender. > > > that is compatible with all the forces of nature. Also the E-Matrix gives physical > > explanations for all the weird quantum processes. IOW, the E-Matrix acts as a bridge > > between QM and relativity and thus unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > >> > >> Your theory is untested, and therefore it can't be said to be right or > >> wrong. What is true is that it is expressed in your own private language. > > > > It is thoroughly tested all observations agree with Model Mechanics. > > > >> > >>> A quantum field is the distortion in the E-Matrix and its excitation at a > >>> specific point represents the passage of a wave-packet (a photon) at that > >>> point. What this mean is that the quantum field theory is a more complicated > >>> way of describing the model of Model Mechanics. > >> > >> If that's true, then you've produced nothing new. > > > > It is completely new.....Model Mechanics provides physical model to unify all the > > forces of nature (including gravity). > > > >> > >>> So your assertion that > >>> I am wrong is baseless. Its time for you to learn some new physics instead > >>> of telling everybody that all new theories are wrong based on the obsolete > >>> quantum field theory. > >> > >> Making a simpler description of quantum field theory doesn't make > >> quantum field theory obsolete. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 08:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0cj3d$qj6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398495 |
On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. >>>> >>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and >>>> attached your own meaning. >>> >>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity >> >> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, >> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would >> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. > > Idiot.....we discussed nothing. Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. > I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria for what a physical theory is. > The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. No, I'm not, but physicists are very clear in what they write about what they expect of a physical theory, and what you have does not meet that. > >> >> You are a pretender. >> -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 10:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <128ea652-18ea-46d9-ae42-b23040eed92e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398498 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > >>>> > >>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and > >>>> attached your own meaning. > >>> > >>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity > >> > >> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, > >> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would > >> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. > > > > Idiot.....we discussed nothing. > > Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. > > > I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. > > No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria > for what a physical theory is. Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's and Einstein's. Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects follow the curvature in spacetime. DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of the book if you send me your email address. > > > The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. > > No, I'm not, but physicists are very clear in what they write about what > they expect of a physical theory, and what you have does not meet that. > > > > >> > >> You are a pretender. > >> > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 13:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0d314$1pm1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398508 |
On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and >>>>>> attached your own meaning. >>>>> >>>>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity >>>> >>>> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, >>>> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would >>>> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. >>> >>> Idiot.....we discussed nothing. >> >> Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. >> >>> I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. >> >> No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria >> for what a physical theory is. > > Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's > and Einstein's. Not by physicists' standards of physical theories. You have your OWN standard for what a good physical theory is, but no physicist is going to care. > Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity > works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects > follow the curvature in spacetime. If you believe that Newton's and Einstein's theories are just equations and offer no explanations, then you do not know those theories. > DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined > result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect > of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far > reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. > You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of > the book if you send me your email address. My email address is bodkinodd@gmail.com, which you would know if you knew how to use your newsgroup reader. > >> >>> The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. >> >> No, I'm not, but physicists are very clear in what they write about what >> they expect of a physical theory, and what you have does not meet that. >> >>> >>>> >>>> You are a pretender. My statement stands unchanged. >>>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 12:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ebbc203-95a2-49ee-8536-c573389a9c38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398512 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:24:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and > >>>>>> attached your own meaning. > >>>>> > >>>>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity > >>>> > >>>> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, > >>>> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would > >>>> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. > >>> > >>> Idiot.....we discussed nothing. > >> > >> Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. > >> > >>> I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. > >> > >> No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria > >> for what a physical theory is. > > > > Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's > > and Einstein's. > > Not by physicists' standards of physical theories. > You have your OWN standard for what a good physical theory is, but no > physicist is going to care. I see so you prefer to stay ignorance of new physics. <sad> > > > Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity > > works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects > > follow the curvature in spacetime. > > If you believe that Newton's and Einstein's theories are just equations > and offer no explanations, then you do not know those theories. Newton had no explanation for the physical mechanism of gravity. Einstein's curvature in spacetime is a math construct and as such not a physical explanation. My theory of gravity is based on the absolute motions between interacting objects in the E-Matrix. > > > DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined > > result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect > > of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > > DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far > > reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. > > You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of > > the book if you send me your email address. > > My email address is bodkinodd@gmail.com, which you would know if you > knew how to use your newsgroup reader. I mailed you the pdf version of my book. > > > > >> > >>> The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. > >> > >> No, I'm not, but physicists are very clear in what they write about what > >> they expect of a physical theory, and what you have does not meet that. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> You are a pretender. > > My statement stands unchanged. > > >>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0g0kd$a54$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398559 |
On 11/15/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:24:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and >>>>>>>> attached your own meaning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity >>>>>> >>>>>> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, >>>>>> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would >>>>>> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot.....we discussed nothing. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. >>>> >>>>> I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. >>>> >>>> No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria >>>> for what a physical theory is. >>> >>> Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's >>> and Einstein's. >> >> Not by physicists' standards of physical theories. >> You have your OWN standard for what a good physical theory is, but no >> physicist is going to care. > > I see so you prefer to stay ignorance of new physics. <sad> What YOU call "new physics" is an irrelevant pretense. What matters is whether physicists recognize it as new physics or even a physical theory. Your strong desire to PRETEND to be a physicist, to PRETEND to have a physical theory, to PRETEND to have new physics doesn't matter to anyone. You can say you have a new IDEA about physics; that wouldn't be a pretense. But of course, physicists will certainly have the discretion to not pay attention to new ideas from uneducated people who don't even know what the terms mean in physics. You might think that's unfair. They don't. Since you have provided your book and I've read half of it, I can say without any doubt whatsoever that what you've produced is not even physics, let alone new physics, regardless what you want to pretend. > >> >>> Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity >>> works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects >>> follow the curvature in spacetime. >> >> If you believe that Newton's and Einstein's theories are just equations >> and offer no explanations, then you do not know those theories. > > Newton had no explanation for the physical mechanism of gravity. While that's true, Newtonian gravity did not rest solely with Newton. Newtonian gravity includes the concept of a gravitational field, which was not put forward by Newton himself but by his successors. Nevertheless, Newtonian gravity has a physical explanation, whether Newton proposed it or not. > Einstein's > curvature in spacetime is a math construct and as such not a physical explanation. Bullshit. Spacetime is a physical model, not a math construct. It has ALWAYS been presented that way. > My theory of gravity is based on the absolute motions between interacting objects > in the E-Matrix. Who cares? The question is whether you are aware of the physical explanations behind Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity, not whether you have your own explanation and don't care about the existing explanations. > >> >>> DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined >>> result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect >>> of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>> DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far >>> reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. >>> You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of >>> the book if you send me your email address. >> >> My email address is bodkinodd@gmail.com, which you would know if you >> knew how to use your newsgroup reader. > > I mailed you the pdf version of my book. Thanks. I note with interest that you've abandoned all hopes of making any money from your self-published book and are only hoping to get eyeballs on it, flinging it at anybody whose email address you know. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. >>>> >>>> No, I'm not, but physicists are very clear in what they write about what >>>> they expect of a physical theory, and what you have does not meet that. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a pretender. >> >> My statement stands unchanged. >> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 14:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fea1cbf9-d2b6-4ab3-bc0d-a9d3be16d007@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398565 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/15/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:24:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and > >>>>>>>> attached your own meaning. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, > >>>>>> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would > >>>>>> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot.....we discussed nothing. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. > >>>> > >>>>> I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. > >>>> > >>>> No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria > >>>> for what a physical theory is. > >>> > >>> Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's > >>> and Einstein's. > >> > >> Not by physicists' standards of physical theories. > >> You have your OWN standard for what a good physical theory is, but no > >> physicist is going to care. > > > > I see so you prefer to stay ignorance of new physics. <sad> > > What YOU call "new physics" is an irrelevant pretense. What matters is > whether physicists recognize it as new physics or even a physical theory. > > Your strong desire to PRETEND to be a physicist, to PRETEND to have a > physical theory, to PRETEND to have new physics doesn't matter to anyone. > > You can say you have a new IDEA about physics; that wouldn't be a > pretense. But of course, physicists will certainly have the discretion > to not pay attention to new ideas from uneducated people who don't even > know what the terms mean in physics. You might think that's unfair. They > don't. Moron..... I have a new physics idea and as such I can give new or extended meaning to existing terms. > > Since you have provided your book and I've read half of it, I can say > without any doubt whatsoever that what you've produced is not even > physics, let alone new physics, regardless what you want to pretend. > > > > >> > >>> Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity > >>> works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects > >>> follow the curvature in spacetime. > >> > >> If you believe that Newton's and Einstein's theories are just equations > >> and offer no explanations, then you do not know those theories. > > > > Newton had no explanation for the physical mechanism of gravity. > > While that's true, Newtonian gravity did not rest solely with Newton. > Newtonian gravity includes the concept of a gravitational field, which > was not put forward by Newton himself but by his successors. > Nevertheless, Newtonian gravity has a physical explanation, whether > Newton proposed it or not. > > > Einstein's > > curvature in spacetime is a math construct and as such not a physical explanation. > > Bullshit. Spacetime is a physical model, not a math construct. It has > ALWAYS been presented that way. > > > My theory of gravity is based on the absolute motions between interacting objects > > in the E-Matrix. > > Who cares? The question is whether you are aware of the physical > explanations behind Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity, not > whether you have your own explanation and don't care about the existing > explanations. > > > > >> > >>> DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined > >>> result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect > >>> of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>> DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far > >>> reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. > >>> You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of > >>> the book if you send me your email address. > >> > >> My email address is bodkinodd@gmail.com, which you would know if you > >> knew how to use your newsgroup reader. > > > > I mailed you the pdf version of my book. > > Thanks. I note with interest that you've abandoned all hopes of making > any money from your self-published book and are only hoping to get > eyeballs on it, flinging it at anybody whose email address you know. Moron I mailed you the file one hour ago and you already read half of it? You are such a liar. BTW you were the first and the only person I sent the file and I am sorry that I did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 09:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0hu1q$v0n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398571 |
On 11/15/2016 4:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:24:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and >>>>>>>>>> attached your own meaning. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, >>>>>>>> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would >>>>>>>> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot.....we discussed nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria >>>>>> for what a physical theory is. >>>>> >>>>> Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's >>>>> and Einstein's. >>>> >>>> Not by physicists' standards of physical theories. >>>> You have your OWN standard for what a good physical theory is, but no >>>> physicist is going to care. >>> >>> I see so you prefer to stay ignorance of new physics. <sad> >> >> What YOU call "new physics" is an irrelevant pretense. What matters is >> whether physicists recognize it as new physics or even a physical theory. >> >> Your strong desire to PRETEND to be a physicist, to PRETEND to have a >> physical theory, to PRETEND to have new physics doesn't matter to anyone. >> >> You can say you have a new IDEA about physics; that wouldn't be a >> pretense. But of course, physicists will certainly have the discretion >> to not pay attention to new ideas from uneducated people who don't even >> know what the terms mean in physics. You might think that's unfair. They >> don't. > > Moron..... I have a new physics idea and as such I can give new or extended > meaning to existing terms. No, not really. That's called inventing your own language. When you do that, physicists aren't really going to be interested in reading your new physics idea, especially since it does not meet their criteria for a physical theory. >> >> Since you have provided your book and I've read half of it, I can say >> without any doubt whatsoever that what you've produced is not even >> physics, let alone new physics, regardless what you want to pretend. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity >>>>> works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects >>>>> follow the curvature in spacetime. >>>> >>>> If you believe that Newton's and Einstein's theories are just equations >>>> and offer no explanations, then you do not know those theories. >>> >>> Newton had no explanation for the physical mechanism of gravity. >> >> While that's true, Newtonian gravity did not rest solely with Newton. >> Newtonian gravity includes the concept of a gravitational field, which >> was not put forward by Newton himself but by his successors. >> Nevertheless, Newtonian gravity has a physical explanation, whether >> Newton proposed it or not. >> >>> Einstein's >>> curvature in spacetime is a math construct and as such not a physical explanation. >> >> Bullshit. Spacetime is a physical model, not a math construct. It has >> ALWAYS been presented that way. >> >>> My theory of gravity is based on the absolute motions between interacting objects >>> in the E-Matrix. >> >> Who cares? The question is whether you are aware of the physical >> explanations behind Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity, not >> whether you have your own explanation and don't care about the existing >> explanations. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined >>>>> result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect >>>>> of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. >>>>> DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far >>>>> reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. >>>>> You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of >>>>> the book if you send me your email address. >>>> >>>> My email address is bodkinodd@gmail.com, which you would know if you >>>> knew how to use your newsgroup reader. >>> >>> I mailed you the pdf version of my book. >> >> Thanks. I note with interest that you've abandoned all hopes of making >> any money from your self-published book and are only hoping to get >> eyeballs on it, flinging it at anybody whose email address you know. > > Moron I mailed you the file one hour ago and you already read half of it? Two hours. I read eight books a week. Yours is not very complex or long, and the print is large and the language simplistic. I finished yesterday evening over a beer. Not impressed. > You are such a liar. BTW you were the first and the only person I sent the > file and I am sorry that I did. You promised you would send it to Tom if he gave you his email address. Face it, you are desperate for attention. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 08:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <352f19a1-ec9b-4296-ace0-125e0020741e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398608 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:30:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/15/2016 4:41 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 5:01:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/15/2016 2:45 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:24:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/14/2016 12:36 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 9:52:32 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 11/14/2016 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and > >>>>>>>>>> attached your own meaning. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, > >>>>>>>> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would > >>>>>>>> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot.....we discussed nothing. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Bullshit. If you can't remember, then you're senile. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I definitely have a new theory of physics that includes a new theory of gravity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, you do not. What you have written does not meet physicists' criteria > >>>>>> for what a physical theory is. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes I do so.....my theory of gravity is more of a thereof gravity than Newton's > >>>>> and Einstein's. > >>>> > >>>> Not by physicists' standards of physical theories. > >>>> You have your OWN standard for what a good physical theory is, but no > >>>> physicist is going to care. > >>> > >>> I see so you prefer to stay ignorance of new physics. <sad> > >> > >> What YOU call "new physics" is an irrelevant pretense. What matters is > >> whether physicists recognize it as new physics or even a physical theory. > >> > >> Your strong desire to PRETEND to be a physicist, to PRETEND to have a > >> physical theory, to PRETEND to have new physics doesn't matter to anyone. > >> > >> You can say you have a new IDEA about physics; that wouldn't be a > >> pretense. But of course, physicists will certainly have the discretion > >> to not pay attention to new ideas from uneducated people who don't even > >> know what the terms mean in physics. You might think that's unfair. They > >> don't. > > > > Moron..... I have a new physics idea and as such I can give new or extended > > meaning to existing terms. > > No, not really. That's called inventing your own language. When you do > that, physicists aren't really going to be interested in reading your > new physics idea, especially since it does not meet their criteria for a > physical theory. Idiot I did not invent my own language.....I extended the meaning of terms used by current physics. If physicists are not interested in reading my book that's their loss....refusing tolerant new ideas is not good physics. > > >> > >> Since you have provided your book and I've read half of it, I can say > >> without any doubt whatsoever that what you've produced is not even > >> physics, let alone new physics, regardless what you want to pretend. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Newton's theory just an equation and no explanation how gravity > >>>>> works. Einstein's GRT is also merely an equation...no explanation why objects > >>>>> follow the curvature in spacetime. > >>>> > >>>> If you believe that Newton's and Einstein's theories are just equations > >>>> and offer no explanations, then you do not know those theories. > >>> > >>> Newton had no explanation for the physical mechanism of gravity. > >> > >> While that's true, Newtonian gravity did not rest solely with Newton. > >> Newtonian gravity includes the concept of a gravitational field, which > >> was not put forward by Newton himself but by his successors. > >> Nevertheless, Newtonian gravity has a physical explanation, whether > >> Newton proposed it or not. > >> > >>> Einstein's > >>> curvature in spacetime is a math construct and as such not a physical explanation. > >> > >> Bullshit. Spacetime is a physical model, not a math construct. It has > >> ALWAYS been presented that way. Spacetime is not a physical model.....it is a math construct. > >> > >>> My theory of gravity is based on the absolute motions between interacting objects > >>> in the E-Matrix. > >> > >> Who cares? The question is whether you are aware of the physical > >> explanations behind Newtonian gravity and Einsteinian gravity, not > >> whether you have your own explanation and don't care about the existing > >> explanations. > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> DTG has a modified Newtonian equation and that gravity is the combined > >>>>> result of an attractive electromagnetic force less the repulsive effect > >>>>> of interacting objects follows the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. > >>>>> DTG not only explains local gravity but it also explains why the far > >>>>> reached regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion. > >>>>> You need to read my book.....I am welling to send you a pdf version of > >>>>> the book if you send me your email address. > >>>> > >>>> My email address is bodkinodd@gmail.com, which you would know if you > >>>> knew how to use your newsgroup reader. > >>> > >>> I mailed you the pdf version of my book. > >> > >> Thanks. I note with interest that you've abandoned all hopes of making > >> any money from your self-published book and are only hoping to get > >> eyeballs on it, flinging it at anybody whose email address you know. > > > > Moron I mailed you the file one hour ago and you already read half of it? > > Two hours. I read eight books a week. Yours is not very complex or long, > and the print is large and the language simplistic. I finished yesterday > evening over a beer. Not impressed. So you lied....Google said that your post was 1 hour. Also during that time you have time to make posts answering my posts that means that you were a lying sack of shit. > > > You are such a liar. BTW you were the first and the only person I sent the > > file and I am sorry that I did. > > You promised you would send it to Tom if he gave you his email address. > Face it, you are desperate for attention. So? He didn't send me his email address.....so I guess he preferred to stay ignorance of new ideas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 11:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0kpv2$1c2b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398700 |
On 11/17/2016 10:34 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:30:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/15/2016 4:41 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> Moron..... I have a new physics idea and as such I can give new or extended >>> meaning to existing terms. >> >> No, not really. That's called inventing your own language. When you do >> that, physicists aren't really going to be interested in reading your >> new physics idea, especially since it does not meet their criteria for a >> physical theory. > > Idiot I did not invent my own language.....I extended the meaning of terms > used by current physics. If physicists are not interested in reading my book > that's their loss....refusing tolerant new ideas is not good physics. Inventing new meanings for words is creating your own language. Physicists are indeed not interested in reading your book, as you know from your sales numbers. Sorry, but your dream that they should look at all new ideas from uneducated amateurs who don't know the basics of physics is ridiculously childish. >>>>> Einstein's >>>>> curvature in spacetime is a math construct and as such not a physical explanation. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Spacetime is a physical model, not a math construct. It has >>>> ALWAYS been presented that way. > > Spacetime is not a physical model.....it is a math construct. Sorry, but physicists disagree. What YOU want to call it is irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> I mailed you the pdf version of my book. >>>> >>>> Thanks. I note with interest that you've abandoned all hopes of making >>>> any money from your self-published book and are only hoping to get >>>> eyeballs on it, flinging it at anybody whose email address you know. >>> >>> Moron I mailed you the file one hour ago and you already read half of it? >> >> Two hours. I read eight books a week. Yours is not very complex or long, >> and the print is large and the language simplistic. I finished yesterday >> evening over a beer. Not impressed. > > So you lied....Google said that your post was 1 hour. Also during that > time you have time to make posts answering my posts that means that you > were a lying sack of shit. It was two hours. It's an extraordinarily simple minded book. > > >> >>> You are such a liar. BTW you were the first and the only person I sent the >>> file and I am sorry that I did. >> >> You promised you would send it to Tom if he gave you his email address. >> Face it, you are desperate for attention. > > So? He didn't send me his email address.....so I guess he preferred to stay > ignorance of new ideas. So what's interesting is that his email address is directly available in Google groups. I can see it too, even though I don't use Google groups. Anyone can. But you can't. Isn't that interesting? Do you want his email address? I can give it to you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web