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 10 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 18 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 10:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1cce9$1oj7$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399612 |
On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger >>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. >>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. >>>>>> >>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? >>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity >>>> being worked on my physicists. >>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? >> >> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced >> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that >> physicists have for what a theory must be. > > In that case SR is not a theory. Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. > >> >> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who >> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-11-27 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <edd8dbf6-8f1e-463d-be43-538217abfa49@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399788 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/24/2016 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 12:03:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/23/2016 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger > >>>>>>> (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. > >>>>>> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Why would anybody care about your speculation? > >>>> It's not my speculation. It's a non-graviton quantum theory of gravity > >>>> being worked on my physicists. > >>> So why is my theory of gravity DTG not acceptable to you? > >> > >> Because, Ken, as I've told you dozens of times, what you have produced > >> is not a theory. It does not meet the minimum requirements that > >> physicists have for what a theory must be. > > > > In that case SR is not a theory. > > Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. > Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct > predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame ( different location in the E-Matrix) and constant speed of light (he speed of light is isotropic c in every location in the E-Matrix) and the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frame (every location of in the E-Matrix).....as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix and that's why SR has the same math as LET. That means that the SR derivation is the E-Matrix derivation. That's why SR is not a separate physical theory......it is a exact copy of the LET derivation using different terms for the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix. > > > > >> > >> You have an IDEA, not a theory. IDEAS from untrained hack amateurs who > >> don't even know what physics terms mean don't draw interest from physicists. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 02:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1g4fa$vbs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #399904 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 11:15:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > In that case SR is not a theory. >> >> Bullshit. SR meets every aspect of what physicists expect of a theory. >> Derivations of equations from the concepts. Calculations of distinct >> predictions. Comparison of those predictions with experiment. >No idiot the SR derivation involved the assumptions of an inertial frame >( different location in the E-Matrix) Stupid Ken, there is no E-Matrix in SR. > and constant speed of light (he >speed of light is isotropic c Stupid Ken, that is one of the two postulates upon which SR is built. > in every location in the E-Matrix) Stupid Ken, again there is no E-Matrix in SR. > and the >laws of physics are the same in all inertial frame Stupid Ken, that is the other postulate that SR is based on. > (every location of in >the E-Matrix)..... Stupid Ken, once again there is no E-Matrix in SR. >as you can see these SR assumed the exclusive >properties of the E-Matrix Stupid Ken, yet again there is no E-Matrix for SR to assume anything about. > and that's why SR has the same math as LET. Stupid Ken, SR has only some of the math the same as LET. >That means that the SR derivation is the E-Matrix derivation. Stupid Ken, the E-Matrix is something from a total failure of a theory. SR, on the other hand, has been very successful. So saying that SR is based in a failed theory is completely bogus. > That's why >SR is not a separate physical theory......it is a exact copy of the LET >derivation using different terms for the exclusive properties of the >E-Matrix. Stupid Ken, you base that claim on a half dozen false claims and you try yet again to connect SR to a complete failure of a theory by trying to connect SR to the failed E-Matrix, that claim of yours is obviously false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 16:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0nuol$1vqg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398817 |
On 11/18/2016 1:27 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> It is a dead-end because there is no valid theory of quantum gravity. >> > >> > As I said, there is still work to do with it. Unanswered questions does >> > not mean the theory is a dead-end. If you thought that a good theory >> > should answer ALL questions and have no open issues, then you are under >> > a major delusion. > It's been a hundred years....it is likely a dead-end. One more thing on this front. It hasn't been a hundred years. Quantum theory wasn't even on anybody's mind until 1925. So that cuts it down to 90 years. Secondly, what's sought is a quantum FIELD theory of gravity, and quantum FIELD theory didn't really start to take form until about 1950, so that cuts it down to 65 years. The development of quantum field theories for other fundamental interactions besides electromagnetism did not reach success until about 1970, so this cuts it down to 45 years. By the way, nobody really worked on general relativity (let alone a quantum field theory of gravity) until 1950. So the lag in producing a quantum field theory of gravity has really only been about 45 years, not a hundred. It is extremely common for things to take that long to figure out in physics. Nothing wrong with it. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 10:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f9de394d-2f2e-4a89-8416-7252885915f9@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. I don't give a shit what you or physicists' criteria for what a physical theory is. It is apparent that you don't understand what the word theory means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0d371$1pu5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398509 |
On 11/14/2016 12:40 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. > > I don't give a shit what you or physicists' criteria for what a physical theory is. Physicists own what constitutes an acceptable physical theory. You don't care and you want to be able to say you have a theory just because you want it. You will not be able to get any attention from any physicist anywhere at anytime, because what you have produced does not meet THEIR criteria. What you want to do is PRETEND you are a physicist, PRETEND you have a physical theory, PRETEND you have answers. That's because you are a pretender. > It is apparent that you don't understand what the word theory means. > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 18:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0cuvn$8a3$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398495 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 8:22:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/12/2016 12:13 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:29:49 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 11/12/2016 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. >> >> >> >> To make your theory you have simply taken words used by physicists and >> >> attached your own meaning. >> > >> > No it's much more than that....the E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity >> >> No it doesn't. We've already discussed what a physical theory has to be, >> which you don't like, and you think it's unfair that scientists would >> dictate what constitutes a scientific theory. >Idiot.....we discussed nothing. I definitely have a new theory of physics that >includes a new theory of gravity. No, Ken, you don't have a new theory according to what scientists refer to as a theory. Besides, we already showed you how Model Mechanics and IRT are complete total failures anyway. > The fact that you disagree means nothing. Furthermore you are not a physicist. But real physicists disagree with you, and of course, real physicists are physicists. You won't be able to find any real physicist who will agree
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 04:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o08ou9$da9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398327 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:45:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. But nobody cares about your so-called "theory" since all it is is a word salad of your personal redefinitions of sciency-sounding words. This is why Model Mechanics and IRT are complete, total failures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 20:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab92aab3-b96c-45cc-92ac-f5d70a888ec6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398391 |
On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:07:39 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:45:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > > But nobody cares about your so-called "theory" since all it is is a word > salad of your personal redefinitions of sciency-sounding words. This is > why Model Mechanics and IRT are complete, total failures. Pave Packet http://oi65.tinypic.com/ao6ofr.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-13 05:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <504fca18-f9f3-44d3-a4d3-b8e53733e121@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398391 |
On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:07:39 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 12:45:21 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > > >My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory. > > But nobody cares about your so-called "theory" since all it is is a word > salad of your personal redefinitions of sciency-sounding words. This is > why Model Mechanics and IRT are complete, total failures. That's why your name is Moron-y.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-14 13:27 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <APOdnTGOjZq8jbfFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #398327 |
On 11/12/16 11/12/16 - 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory.[...] That is NOT what "photon" means. You are fraudulently attempting to garner support for your "theory" by using common technical words with VASTLY different meanings, in an attempt to deceive unwary readers. That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. Another reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse to correct your manifest ignorance. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 08:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <375b255e-d564-42f0-9c80-2fded96e8981@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398514 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/12/16 11/12/16 - 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory.[...] > > That is NOT what "photon" means. You are fraudulently attempting to garner > support for your "theory" by using common technical words with VASTLY different > meanings, in an attempt to deceive unwary readers. Sigh....physicists have no knowledge of the structure of a photon....specifically why a gamma photon have more energy than a visible light photon. I gave a description for the photon that is compatible with observations. A wave-packet description will explain why light has duality properties. BTW your rejection of my extended description for a photon is laughable....what is the harm of my extended description? > > That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. Another > reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic > physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever > of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a > "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse > to correct your manifest ignorance. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 09:07 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <962432d9-9a04-4a59-b060-c4e1887a414a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398546 |
The Honorable KenSeto wrote: Sigh....physicists have no knowledge of the structure of a photon....specifically why a gamma photon have more energy than a visible light photon. I gave a description for the photon that is compatible with observations. A wave-packet description will explain why light has duality properties. BTW your rejection of my extended description for a photon is laughable....what is the harm of my extended description? http://oi61.tinypic.com/333h1li.jpg 1 / ((((4 * pi) / (10^7)) / (376.7303^2)) * (c^2)) = 1.25663697e-6 The Energy of the Photon is Equal to its electromagnetic field which is equal to a quantity of Mass byway of e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 09:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b06711a-eac7-4935-8753-557c9827376d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398549 |
http://oi61.tinypic.com/333h1li.jpg 1 / ((((4 * pi) / (10^7)) / (376.7303^2)) * (c^2)) = 1.25663697e-6 The Energy of the Photon is Equal to its electromagnetic field which is equal to a quantity of Mass byway of e^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 It is a spherical Möbius Transformation & the Mandelbrot Set
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 13:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <710b3670-e082-465a-b823-4d0d97ff3fc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398514 |
On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 11/12/16 11/12/16 - 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory.[...] > > That is NOT what "photon" means. You are fraudulently attempting to garner > support for your "theory" by using common technical words with VASTLY different > meanings, in an attempt to deceive unwary readers. > > That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. So you prefer to stay ignorance of new ideas? <sad> > Another > reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic > physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever > of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a > "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse > to correct your manifest ignorance. ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. I created a new and superior theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. You need to read my book. If you send me your email address I will send you the pdf version of my book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 23:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0g4p6$qeu$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398560 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >> On 11/12/16 11/12/16 - 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory.[...] >> >> That is NOT what "photon" means. You are fraudulently attempting to garner >> support for your "theory" by using common technical words with VASTLY different >> meanings, in an attempt to deceive unwary readers. >> >> That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. >So you prefer to stay ignorance of new ideas? <sad> Applying your own unique meanings to standard terms of physics, such as that redefinition of "photon" is not "new physics". It is word salad, combining a bunch of science words together that at first glance may look like something but is really just gibberish. Real physicists have a very specific definition of what a photon is. >> Another >> reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic >> physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever >> of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a >> "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse >> to correct your manifest ignorance. >ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. I created a new and superior theory of relativity >called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. You need to read my book. If >you send me your email address I will send you the pdf version of my book. But we already know from what you posted here that IRT and DTG are complete, absolute failures.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a2c7573c-ac09-48eb-9497-341a2f5041d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398572 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:12:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 2:27:36 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 11/12/16 11/12/16 - 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > My description of a photon (a wave-packet) is correct according to my theory.[...] > >> > >> That is NOT what "photon" means. You are fraudulently attempting to garner > >> support for your "theory" by using common technical words with VASTLY different > >> meanings, in an attempt to deceive unwary readers. > >> > >> That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. > > >So you prefer to stay ignorance of new ideas? <sad> > > Applying your own unique meanings to standard terms of physics, such as that > redefinition of "photon" is not "new physics". It is word salad, combining > a bunch of science words together that at first glance may look like something > but is really just gibberish. Real physicists have a very specific definition > of what a photon is . So what is that definition? If a photon is a particle why then we can measure a wavelength for it? > > >> Another > >> reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic > >> physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever > >> of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a > >> "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse > >> to correct your manifest ignorance. > > >ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. I created a new and superior theory of relativity > >called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. You need to read my book. If > >you send me your email address I will send you the pdf version of my book. > > But we already know from what you posted here that IRT and DTG are complete, > absolute failures. You know nothing....you are a Moron-y
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 17:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0kr24$mr1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #398702 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:12:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> >> That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. >> >> >So you prefer to stay ignorance of new ideas? <sad> >> >> Applying your own unique meanings to standard terms of physics, such as that >> redefinition of "photon" is not "new physics". It is word salad, combining >> a bunch of science words together that at first glance may look like something >> but is really just gibberish. Real physicists have a very specific definition >> of what a photon is . >So what is that definition? You are too stupid to use Google, Stupid Ken? A photon is an elementary particle with zero rest mass and is a boson that is the force carrier of the electromagnetic force. Like all elementary particles the photon exhibits wave-particle duality and has properties of both waves and particles. >If a photon is a particle why then we can measure a wavelength for it? If a photon is a wave, why then we can measure particle-like properties for it? Stupid Ken, do you consider an electron to be a particle? Do you know we can measure the wavelength of electrons? Do you know how an electron microscope works? Do you know what the Compton wavelength of a particle is? >> >> Another >> >> reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic >> >> physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever >> >> of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a >> >> "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse >> >> to correct your manifest ignorance. >> >> >ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. I created a new and superior theory of relativity >> >called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. You need to read my book. If >> >you send me your email address I will send you the pdf version of my book. >> >> But we already know from what you posted here that IRT and DTG are complete, >> absolute failures. >You know nothing....you are a Moron-y Everyone knows that IRT and DTG are complete, absolute failures. All you have is namecalling and failed so-called "theories".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 13:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0kuqu$1kv0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398704 |
On 11/17/2016 11:57 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:12:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>> >>>>> That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. >>> >>>> So you prefer to stay ignorance of new ideas? <sad> >>> >>> Applying your own unique meanings to standard terms of physics, such as that >>> redefinition of "photon" is not "new physics". It is word salad, combining >>> a bunch of science words together that at first glance may look like something >>> but is really just gibberish. Real physicists have a very specific definition >>> of what a photon is . > >> So what is that definition? > > You are too stupid to use Google, Stupid Ken? A photon is an elementary particle Where "particle" means here the quantum of the underlying field, here the electromagnetic field. Field quanta have properties not associated with 19th-century particle concepts, like wavelength. This is probably where Ken is falling down. He does not know what a field quantum is or what its properties are. > with zero rest mass and is a boson that is the force carrier of the electromagnetic > force. Like all elementary particles the photon exhibits wave-particle duality > and has properties of both waves and particles. > >> If a photon is a particle why then we can measure a wavelength for it? > > If a photon is a wave, why then we can measure particle-like properties for it? > > Stupid Ken, do you consider an electron to be a particle? Do you know we can > measure the wavelength of electrons? Do you know how an electron microscope > works? Do you know what the Compton wavelength of a particle is? > >>>>> Another >>>>> reason is that you are so profoundly ignorant of basic >>>>> physics and experiments that you have no hope whatsoever >>>>> of saying anything that makes sense. much less creating a >>>>> "theory". You display amazing stupidity because you refuse >>>>> to correct your manifest ignorance. >>> >>>> ROTFLOL.....pot kettle black. I created a new and superior theory of relativity >>>> called IRT and a new theory of gravity called DTG. You need to read my book. If >>>> you send me your email address I will send you the pdf version of my book. >>> >>> But we already know from what you posted here that IRT and DTG are complete, >>> absolute failures. > >> You know nothing....you are a Moron-y > > Everyone knows that IRT and DTG are complete, absolute failures. > All you have is namecalling and failed so-called "theories". > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 12:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <63f0c3f9-ac67-4956-819a-f94afc853fdd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398710 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 2:01:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/17/2016 11:57 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > > >> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:12:42 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>> > >>>>> That's a major reason why I rarely respond to you. > >>> > >>>> So you prefer to stay ignorance of new ideas? <sad> > >>> > >>> Applying your own unique meanings to standard terms of physics, such as that > >>> redefinition of "photon" is not "new physics". It is word salad, combining > >>> a bunch of science words together that at first glance may look like something > >>> but is really just gibberish. Real physicists have a very specific definition > >>> of what a photon is . > > > >> So what is that definition? > > > > You are too stupid to use Google, Stupid Ken? A photon is an elementary particle > > Where "particle" means here the quantum of the underlying field, here > the electromagnetic field. Yeah ....a photon is a quantum particle pop in and out of the electromagnetic field due to the uncertainty principle. Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely more compatible with observations. > > Field quanta have properties not associated with 19th-century particle > concepts, like wavelength. This is probably where Ken is falling down. > He does not know what a field quantum is or what its properties are. So..... physicists can invent quantum particles. Why I am not allowed to invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web