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 9 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 18 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 12:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dcac79e5-aafa-4c2f-a19d-54dffc607d2a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398703 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:38:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. So according to you physics must be complex to be successful? I don't think so. I think physics have been hijacked by the mathematicians and physicists allowed themselves to led to an unnecessary complex dead end. > > > > > > >> > >>> 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. I tried to find it in Goole and failed. Since he didn't want to send his email address to me I don't want you to give me his email address.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 17:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0ld6b$bq7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398720 |
On 11/17/2016 2:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:38:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> It was two hours. It's an extraordinarily simple minded book. > > So according to you physics must be complex to be successful? I don't > think so. I think physics have been hijacked by the mathematicians and > physicists allowed themselves to led to an unnecessary complex dead end. I don't see why you call it a dead end. It matches experiment beautifully, and there is still work to do with it. Nothing dead-end about it. I understand you hate that physics requires training and you believe physics should be accessible to the ordinary man without training. But that's you being a sulking child about reality. You can't be a surgeon without training. You can't be an engineer without training. You can't be a lawyer without training. And you can't be a physicist without training. >>>> 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. > > I tried to find it in Goole and failed. Then you are incompetent. > Since he didn't want to send his email address to me I don't want you to give me his email address. Alright, I won't. It's easy to get from sci.physics.relativity, though. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 07:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <02afe54b-240a-4d6c-b9e4-9e701c25da53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398734 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 6:06:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/17/2016 2:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:38:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> It was two hours. It's an extraordinarily simple minded book. > > > > So according to you physics must be complex to be successful? I don't > > think so. I think physics have been hijacked by the mathematicians and > > physicists allowed themselves to led to an unnecessary complex dead end. > > I don't see why you call it a dead end. It matches experiment > beautifully, and there is still work to do with it. Nothing dead-end > about it. It is a dead-end because there is no valid theory of quantum gravity. OTOH Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG that match observations. DTG is derived based on the concept of absolute motions of interacting objects in the E-Matrix....... all the other forces are derived using the same concept of absolute motions in the E-Matrix and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 09:34 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0n71p$o6u$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398780 |
On 11/18/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 6:06:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/17/2016 2:50 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:38:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> It was two hours. It's an extraordinarily simple minded book. >>> >>> So according to you physics must be complex to be successful? I don't >>> think so. I think physics have been hijacked by the mathematicians and >>> physicists allowed themselves to led to an unnecessary complex dead end. >> >> I don't see why you call it a dead end. It matches experiment >> beautifully, and there is still work to do with it. Nothing dead-end >> about it. > > 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. > OTOH Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG > that match observations. DTG is derived based on the concept of absolute > motions of interacting objects in the > E-Matrix....... all the other forces are derived using the same concept > of absolute motions in the E-Matrix and thus the unification of all the > forces of nature becomes feasible. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 11:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ac8bf78-5f72-47c9-8e5a-45e26c1816f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398783 |
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 10:34:20 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/18/2016 9:21 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 6:06:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/17/2016 2:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 12:38:46 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> It was two hours. It's an extraordinarily simple minded book. > >>> > >>> So according to you physics must be complex to be successful? I don't > >>> think so. I think physics have been hijacked by the mathematicians and > >>> physicists allowed themselves to led to an unnecessary complex dead end. > >> > >> I don't see why you call it a dead end. It matches experiment > >> beautifully, and there is still work to do with it. Nothing dead-end > >> about it. > > > > 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. I don't understand the resistance to accept any new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other force. > > > OTOH Model Mechanics gives rise to a new theory of gravity called DTG > > that match observations. DTG is derived based on the concept of absolute > > motions of interacting objects in the > > E-Matrix....... all the other forces are derived using the same concept > > of absolute motions in the E-Matrix and thus the unification of all the > > forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 15:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0ns9i$1rin$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. Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. > I don't understand the > resistance to accept any new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other force. But, Ken, you don't HAVE a theory. You have an IDEA, which is a far cry from what scientists demand that a theory has. Having an IDEA is not enough, especially when you don't understand physics and you don't even know the meanings of the terms as used by physicists. An IDEA from a hack amateur is not enough. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0ntjh$1tp0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398833 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> It's been a hundred years....it is likely a dead-end. > > Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. > Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was > predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics > were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to > schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are > LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it > doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. Interesting thing, I'm not sure I understand. What would take hundred of years to solve or figure it out, is done over in minutes/hours on a fast computer. So it is a question to just wait, do nothing, and just wait. Very funny indeed. As for instance another one not understandable. They have no problem to compact the whole Universe back into a teaspoon space. Which is logical. But hey, you have to restart. What property of underneath Rules or Math demands that matter have to arrange by Hydrogen Atoms, Protons, Neutrons and Electrons? There is nothing out there to demand that. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 16:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0ntoe$1the$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398840 |
On 11/18/2016 3:59 PM, Hank Barco wrote: > > Interesting thing, I'm not sure I understand. What would take hundred of > years to solve or figure it out, is done over in minutes/hours on a fast > computer. So it is a question to just wait, do nothing, and just wait. > Very funny indeed. > > As for instance another one not understandable. They have no problem to > compact the whole Universe back into a teaspoon space. Which is logical. > > But hey, you have to restart. What property of underneath Rules or Math > demands that matter have to arrange by Hydrogen Atoms, Protons, Neutrons > and Electrons? There is nothing out there to demand that. Thanks. > Do me a favor and use the word "Tensor" in your next reply so we can get this over with. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hank Barco <hankbarco@hankbarco.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0nu30$1udg$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398843 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> But hey, you have to restart. What property of underneath Rules or Math >> demands that matter have to arrange by Hydrogen Atoms, Protons, >> Neutrons and Electrons? There is nothing out there to demand that. >> Thanks. >> > Do me a favor and use the word "Tensor" in your next reply so we can get > this over with. Why, is that another domain you struggle to understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o0p1l2$lro$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #398847 |
On 18.11.2016 23:07, Hank Barco wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 06:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e3270398-36b2-428f-9de0-952b4dd293b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398833 |
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. > > Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. > Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was > predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics > were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to > schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are > LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it > doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. > > > I don't understand the > > resistance to accept any new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other force. > > But, Ken, you don't HAVE a theory. You have an IDEA, which is a far cry > from what scientists demand that a theory has. Having an IDEA is not > enough, especially when you don't understand physics and you don't even > know the meanings of the terms as used by physicists. An IDEA from a > hack amateur is not enough. > I do have a theory of gravity. It is not based on graviton and that's why it is a viable theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 15:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0t3c5$177u$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398916 |
On 11/19/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> 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. >> >> Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. >> Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was >> predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics >> were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to >> schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are >> LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it >> doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. > > It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting > the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. Who says? Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a graviton. I'm sure you knew that. > >> >>> I don't understand the >>> resistance to accept any new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other force. >> >> But, Ken, you don't HAVE a theory. You have an IDEA, which is a far cry >> from what scientists demand that a theory has. Having an IDEA is not >> enough, especially when you don't understand physics and you don't even >> know the meanings of the terms as used by physicists. An IDEA from a >> hack amateur is not enough. >> > > I do have a theory of gravity. It is not based on graviton and that's why it is a viable theory. You've just illustrated that you are a hack amateur. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 05:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a91048de-8f75-4bab-9b61-51c796c24596@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399048 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:08:25 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/19/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> 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. > >> > >> Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. > >> Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was > >> predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics > >> were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to > >> schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are > >> LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it > >> doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. > > > > It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting > > the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. > > Who says? Idiot.....that's why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity. Gee you are stupid. > Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a > graviton. I'm sure you knew that. 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. > > > > >> > >>> I don't understand the > >>> resistance to accept any new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other force. > >> > >> But, Ken, you don't HAVE a theory. You have an IDEA, which is a far cry > >> from what scientists demand that a theory has. Having an IDEA is not > >> enough, especially when you don't understand physics and you don't even > >> know the meanings of the terms as used by physicists. An IDEA from a > >> hack amateur is not enough. > >> > > > > I do have a theory of gravity. It is not based on graviton and that's why it is a viable theory. > > You've just illustrated that you are a hack amateur. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 08:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0uvos$1uij$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399156 |
On 11/21/2016 7:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:08:25 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/19/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. >>>> Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was >>>> predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics >>>> were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to >>>> schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are >>>> LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it >>>> doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. >>> >>> It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting >>> the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. >> >> Who says? > > Idiot.....that's why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity. Gee you are stupid. That's true, but a viable theory of quantum gravity doesn't necessarily mean one involving gravitons. > >> Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a >> graviton. I'm sure you knew that. > > 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. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> I don't understand the >>>>> resistance to accept any new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other force. >>>> >>>> But, Ken, you don't HAVE a theory. You have an IDEA, which is a far cry >>>> from what scientists demand that a theory has. Having an IDEA is not >>>> enough, especially when you don't understand physics and you don't even >>>> know the meanings of the terms as used by physicists. An IDEA from a >>>> hack amateur is not enough. >>>> >>> >>> I do have a theory of gravity. It is not based on graviton and that's why it is a viable theory. >> >> You've just illustrated that you are a hack amateur. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-11-22 11:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32b8240e-fccb-4059-a450-6271a61f1e48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399168 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/21/2016 7:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:08:25 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/19/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. > >>>> Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was > >>>> predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics > >>>> were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to > >>>> schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are > >>>> LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it > >>>> doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. > >>> > >>> It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting > >>> the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. > >> > >> Who says? > > > > Idiot.....that's why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity. Gee you are stupid. > > That's true, but a viable theory of quantum gravity doesn't necessarily > mean one involving gravitons. Then it is not a quantum theory of gravity.....my theory of gravity, DTG, is such a theory. > > > > >> Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a > >> graviton. I'm sure you knew that. > > > > 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? I have a viable theory of gravity called DTG in the following link. DTG is compatible with all the other forces and thus the unification of all the forces become feasible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 20:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o12aeo$6l4$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #399359 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/21/2016 7:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a >> >> graviton. I'm sure you knew that. >> > >> > So what is your quantum theory of gravity that doesn't require a force messenger >> > (the graviton)? Do you know what quantum gravity means? Apparently not. >> >> Oh, lots. Spin-foam lattices, for example. >Why would anybody care about your speculation? I have a viable theory of gravity >called DTG in the following link. DTG is compatible with all the other forces and >thus the unification of all the forces become feasible. Why would anyone care about your speculation called DTG?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14am5$bf5$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399359 |
On 11/22/2016 1:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/21/2016 7:06 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:08:25 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/19/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. >>>>>> Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was >>>>>> predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics >>>>>> were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to >>>>>> schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are >>>>>> LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it >>>>>> doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. >>>>> >>>>> It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting >>>>> the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. >>>> >>>> Who says? >>> >>> Idiot.....that's why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity. Gee you are stupid. >> >> That's true, but a viable theory of quantum gravity doesn't necessarily >> mean one involving gravitons. > > Then it is not a quantum theory of gravity. Bullshit. > ....my theory of gravity, DTG, is such a theory. >> >>> >>>> Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a >>>> graviton. I'm sure you knew that. >>> >>> 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. > I have a viable theory of gravity called DTG in the following link. DTG is compatible > with all the other forces and thus the unification of all the forces become feasible. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 08:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <286bf814-7da4-4dd3-a411-2ebd8d5cef16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399465 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:56:08 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/22/2016 1:38 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:19:12 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/21/2016 7:06 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:08:25 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/19/2016 8:02 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:36:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, but you're full of shit. Science doesn't move on your timeline. > >>>>>> Newtonian gravity waited two hundred years before Neptune's presence was > >>>>>> predicted by it. It took a hundred years before Gregor Mendel's genetics > >>>>>> were understood in terms of DNA. We don't have the answer to > >>>>>> schizophrenia, even though it's been studied for 150 years. There are > >>>>>> LOTS of things that take longer than 100 years to figure out. And it > >>>>>> doesn't MATTER if you think that's too long. > >>>>> > >>>>> It's too long when there is evidence that the idea of graviton transmitting > >>>>> the force of gravity is proven mathematically not viable. > >>>> > >>>> Who says? > >>> > >>> Idiot.....that's why there is no viable theory of quantum gravity. Gee you are stupid. > >> > >> That's true, but a viable theory of quantum gravity doesn't necessarily > >> mean one involving gravitons. > > > > Then it is not a quantum theory of gravity. > > Bullshit. Idiot....a quantum field theory of gravity requires a force messenger such as the graviton. > > > ....my theory of gravity, DTG, is such a theory. > >> > >>> > >>>> Besides, a quantum theory of gravity does not necessarily require a > >>>> graviton. I'm sure you knew that. > >>> > >>> 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? > > > > I have a viable theory of gravity called DTG in the following link. DTG is compatible > > with all the other forces and thus the unification of all the forces become feasible. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 11:03 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14i4p$p96$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399484 |
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. 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 07:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d6e6b94-6541-4d43-9543-74c09c122628@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399485 |
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. > > 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web