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 11 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 18 Next page →
| From | Edwin Grünner <edwgr@menckensite.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0l9oq$6kg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398717 |
kenseto wrote: >> Field quanta have properties not associated with 19th-century particle >> concepts, like wavelength. This is probably where Ken is falling down. >> He does not know what a field quantum is or what its properties are. > > So..... physicists can invent quantum particles. Why I am not allowed to > invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon? Whats the difference. According to IRT, a subset of Relativity, there is no difference. You just use a curvilinear coordinate system. Thats all it takes. Because you are just another physicists hating tensors. Thats why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 16:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0lcnp$aso$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398717 |
On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > 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. Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it splattered all over your book too. > Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? Nope. > Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the > electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? It doesn't. The source does. > My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely > more compatible with observations. Bullshit. > >> >> 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. They didn't invent field quanta. They DISCOVERED them. > Why I am not allowed to invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon? Because field quanta make quantitative predictions that have passed experimental test. You have an IDEA you call wave-packets, but you do not make any *quantitative* predictions that can be tested against experiment with them. That is just empty and idle speculation with zero -- repeat, zero -- scientific value. You can invent "sequiligons", mystical creatures with four heads and nine feet, if you want; nobody will be interested in them as a scientific idea. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 07:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fa79ae6f-59ee-4546-931c-2b2c23ea96d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398733 |
On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:59:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > > 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. > > Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it > splattered all over your book too. > > > Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? > > Nope. > > > Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the > > electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? > > It doesn't. The source does. In that case why do you need the field? The source produce a gamma photon and it travel as a particle toward the target....there is no need for the field....Right? > > > My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely > > more compatible with observations. > > Bullshit. No bullshit.....the combination of quantum/field can be replaced by the wave-packet/E-matrix. There is no quantum/field properties cannot be duplicated by the wave-packet/E-Matrix combination. > > > > >> > >> 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. > > They didn't invent field quanta. They DISCOVERED them. > > > Why I am not allowed to invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon? > > Because field quanta make quantitative predictions that have passed > experimental test. The same equations can be used for the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept to made quantitative predictions......except that the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept is much more simpler than the quantum/field concept. >You have an IDEA you call wave-packets, but you do > not make any *quantitative* predictions that can be tested against > experiment with them. Model Mechanics provide simpler explanation than the field/quantum concept for the math of quantum mechanics. Therefore it is a preferred. It is the same as SR used the LT to explain his concept of space-time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 09:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0n6v7$o6u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398779 |
On 11/18/2016 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:59:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it >> splattered all over your book too. >> >>> Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? >> >> Nope. >> >>> Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the >>> electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? >> >> It doesn't. The source does. > > In that case why do you need the field? The source produce a gamma photon and it > travel as a particle toward the target....there is no need for the field....Right? Nope, not right. The source produces a quantized disturbance in the electromagnetic field. It is this quantized disturbance that propagates, and it is called a photon. > >> >>> My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely >>> more compatible with observations. >> >> Bullshit. > > No bullshit.....the combination of quantum/field can be replaced by the > wave-packet/E-matrix. There is no quantum/field properties cannot be duplicated by the > wave-packet/E-Matrix combination. Bullshit. As I said, you don't even know all the properties of the field quantum. So you are making a blanket statement that B replicates everything about A without knowing what A is. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> They didn't invent field quanta. They DISCOVERED them. >> >>> Why I am not allowed to invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon? >> >> Because field quanta make quantitative predictions that have passed >> experimental test. > > The same equations can be used for the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept to made > quantitative predictions......except that the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept > is much more simpler than the quantum/field concept. This is a continuing delusion on your part. The equations ARE NOT SEPARATE from the concept. The equations FOLLOW FROM the concept. You can't just replace one concept with another and just bolt on the equations from the first concept as though it were a window air conditioner. In physics, the concept TELLS YOU how to write down the equations, and different concepts lead to a different set of equations. (A few equations may be in common, but they will differ in others. LET and SR are classic examples of this, where the Lorentz transformations are the same, but other equations follow from SR concepts that are different than what LET has.) The equations lead to predictions, and the predictions are compared to measurements. If you ever thought, "Just replace the concepts with simpler ones, but just use the math of the more complex concepts," then you have been operating under a horrible delusion. > >> You have an IDEA you call wave-packets, but you do >> not make any *quantitative* predictions that can be tested against >> experiment with them. > > Model Mechanics provide simpler explanation than the field/quantum > concept for the math of quantum mechanics. Therefore it is a preferred. > It is the same as SR used the LT to explain his concept of space-time. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7fcaa09d-cb54-4bc2-9ad4-6fb7a91ca8c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398781 |
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 10:32:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/18/2016 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:59:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it > >> splattered all over your book too. > >> > >>> Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? > >> > >> Nope. > >> > >>> Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the > >>> electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? > >> > >> It doesn't. The source does. > > > > In that case why do you need the field? The source produce a gamma photon and it > > travel as a particle toward the target....there is no need for the field....Right? > > Nope, not right. The source produces a quantized disturbance in the > electromagnetic field. It is this quantized disturbance that propagates, > and it is called a photon. There is no difference than the source produces a wave-packet (photon) due to absolute motion of the source and deposits this wave-packet into the E-Matrix and the wave-packet travel coherently in the E-Matrix at constant speed toward the target. > > > > >> > >>> My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely > >>> more compatible with observations. > >> > >> Bullshit. > > > > No bullshit.....the combination of quantum/field can be replaced by the > > wave-packet/E-matrix. There is no quantum/field properties cannot be duplicated by the > > wave-packet/E-Matrix combination. > > Bullshit. As I said, you don't even know all the properties of the field > quantum. So you are making a blanket statement that B replicates > everything about A without knowing what A is. Moron....I know all the magical properties of the magical field......mainly it can have any properties physicists desired. In case you don't know that's not science. > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >> > >> They didn't invent field quanta. They DISCOVERED them. > >> > >>> Why I am not allowed to invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon? > >> > >> Because field quanta make quantitative predictions that have passed > >> experimental test. > > > > The same equations can be used for the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept to made > > quantitative predictions......except that the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept > > is much more simpler than the quantum/field concept. > > This is a continuing delusion on your part. The equations ARE NOT > SEPARATE from the concept. The equations FOLLOW FROM the concept. You > can't just replace one concept with another and just bolt on the > equations from the first concept as though it were a window air conditioner. > > In physics, the concept TELLS YOU how to write down the equations, and > different concepts lead to a different set of equations. (A few > equations may be in common, but they will differ in others. LET and SR > are classic examples of this, where the Lorentz transformations are the > same, but other equations follow from SR concepts that are different > than what LET has.) The equations lead to predictions, and the > predictions are compared to measurements. > > If you ever thought, "Just replace the concepts with simpler ones, but > just use the math of the more complex concepts," then you have been > operating under a horrible delusion. > > > > >> You have an IDEA you call wave-packets, but you do > >> not make any *quantitative* predictions that can be tested against > >> experiment with them. > > > > Model Mechanics provide simpler explanation than the field/quantum > > concept for the math of quantum mechanics. Therefore it is a preferred. > > It is the same as SR used the LT to explain his concept of space-time. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 15:29 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0nrqr$1qro$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398812 |
On 11/18/2016 1:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 10:32:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/18/2016 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:59:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it >>>> splattered all over your book too. >>>> >>>>> Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>>> Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the >>>>> electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? >>>> >>>> It doesn't. The source does. >>> >>> In that case why do you need the field? The source produce a gamma photon and it >>> travel as a particle toward the target....there is no need for the field....Right? >> >> Nope, not right. The source produces a quantized disturbance in the >> electromagnetic field. It is this quantized disturbance that propagates, >> and it is called a photon. > > There is no difference than the source produces a wave-packet (photon) due to > absolute motion of the source and deposits this wave-packet into the E-Matrix > and the wave-packet travel coherently in the E-Matrix at constant speed toward the target. Yes there is. Quite a bit. You have not taken into any account the properties of the electromagnetic field. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely >>>>> more compatible with observations. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>> >>> No bullshit.....the combination of quantum/field can be replaced by the >>> wave-packet/E-matrix. There is no quantum/field properties cannot be duplicated by the >>> wave-packet/E-Matrix combination. >> >> Bullshit. As I said, you don't even know all the properties of the field >> quantum. So you are making a blanket statement that B replicates >> everything about A without knowing what A is. > > Moron....I know all the magical properties of the magical field. It's not magical. It's extremely well understood. > .....mainly it can have any properties physicists desired. In case you don't know that's > not science. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Just because YOU don't understand the electromagnetic field doesn't mean I don't. It's not a fabrication of scientists. It's a real thing. When you do this -- dismiss something you don't understand as a magic trick -- then you end up looking like an idiot. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-19 05:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c897aa2d-a4fa-45fd-9513-865d42fc24ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398829 |
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 4:29:03 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/18/2016 1:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 10:32:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/18/2016 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:59:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it > >>>> splattered all over your book too. > >>>> > >>>>> Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? > >>>> > >>>> Nope. > >>>> > >>>>> Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the > >>>>> electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? > >>>> > >>>> It doesn't. The source does. > >>> > >>> In that case why do you need the field? The source produce a gamma photon and it > >>> travel as a particle toward the target....there is no need for the field....Right? > >> > >> Nope, not right. The source produces a quantized disturbance in the > >> electromagnetic field. It is this quantized disturbance that propagates, > >> and it is called a photon. > > > > There is no difference than the source produces a wave-packet (photon) due to > > absolute motion of the source and deposits this wave-packet into the E-Matrix > > and the wave-packet travel coherently in the E-Matrix at constant speed toward the target. > > Yes there is. Quite a bit. > You have not taken into any account the properties of the > electromagnetic field. Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the stress and strain in the E-Matrix. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely > >>>>> more compatible with observations. > >>>> > >>>> Bullshit. > >>> > >>> No bullshit.....the combination of quantum/field can be replaced by the > >>> wave-packet/E-matrix. There is no quantum/field properties cannot be duplicated by the > >>> wave-packet/E-Matrix combination. > >> > >> Bullshit. As I said, you don't even know all the properties of the field > >> quantum. So you are making a blanket statement that B replicates > >> everything about A without knowing what A is. > > > > Moron....I know all the magical properties of the magical field. > > It's not magical. It's extremely well understood. > > > .....mainly it can have any properties physicists desired. In case you don't know that's > > not science. > > Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. Just because YOU > don't understand the electromagnetic field doesn't mean I don't. It's > not a fabrication of scientists. It's a real thing. > > When you do this -- dismiss something you don't understand as a magic > trick -- then you end up looking like an idiot. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 15:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0t363$177u$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #398912 |
On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of > the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the > stress and strain in the E-Matrix. >> > Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 04:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <828a917a-1e56-42b1-8c1f-8e7dbfaae88a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399045 |
On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of > > the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the > > stress and strain in the E-Matrix. > >> > > > Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the > divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you > know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. Moron....look it up yourself. The electric and magnetic fields are just stress and strain in the E-Matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 08:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o0uvjl$1uij$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399154 |
On 11/21/2016 6:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of >>> the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the >>> stress and strain in the E-Matrix. >>>>> >> >> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the >> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you >> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. > > Moron....look it up yourself. See? Your model CANNOT explain the properties of the electromagnetic field, despite your broad-brush claim that it can. > The electric and magnetic fields are just stress > and strain in the E-Matrix. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 11:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0f01c9f3-7a16-42d5-9212-7fdc34e90547@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399166 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/21/2016 6:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of > >>> the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the > >>> stress and strain in the E-Matrix. > >>>>> > >> > >> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the > >> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you > >> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. > > > > Moron....look it up yourself. > > See? Your model CANNOT explain the properties of the electromagnetic > field, despite your broad-brush claim that it can. Hey idiot....the explanations are as shown below: > > The electric and magnetic fields are just stress > > and strain in the E-Matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 08:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14amq$bf5$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399350 |
On 11/22/2016 1:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/21/2016 6:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of >>>>> the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the >>>>> stress and strain in the E-Matrix. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the >>>> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you >>>> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. >>> >>> Moron....look it up yourself. >> >> See? Your model CANNOT explain the properties of the electromagnetic >> field, despite your broad-brush claim that it can. > > Hey idiot....the explanations are as shown below: >>> The electric and magnetic fields are just stress >>> and strain in the E-Matrix. > Don't see anything in that explanation that shows how the E-matrix predicts the values of the divergences of the electric and magnetic fields. If you thought this is all science requires of an explanation, then you have a seriously deluded naivety about what science is. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a479530a-da85-4117-aa65-bca8ddf3833b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399467 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:56:29 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/22/2016 1:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/21/2016 6:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of > >>>>> the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the > >>>>> stress and strain in the E-Matrix. > >>>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the > >>>> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you > >>>> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. > >>> > >>> Moron....look it up yourself. > >> > >> See? Your model CANNOT explain the properties of the electromagnetic > >> field, despite your broad-brush claim that it can. > > > > Hey idiot....the explanations are as shown below: > >>> The electric and magnetic fields are just stress > >>> and strain in the E-Matrix. > > > > Don't see anything in that explanation that shows how the E-matrix > predicts the values of the divergences of the electric and magnetic fields. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent......why?.....because the E-strings that compose of the E-Matrix obey the inverse square law. See page 45 to 47 of my book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 10:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1cc90$1oj7$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399609 |
On 11/24/2016 9:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 9:56:29 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/22/2016 1:19 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 11/21/2016 6:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of >>>>>>> the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the >>>>>>> stress and strain in the E-Matrix. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the >>>>>> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you >>>>>> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. >>>>> >>>>> Moron....look it up yourself. >>>> >>>> See? Your model CANNOT explain the properties of the electromagnetic >>>> field, despite your broad-brush claim that it can. >>> >>> Hey idiot....the explanations are as shown below: >>>>> The electric and magnetic fields are just stress >>>>> and strain in the E-Matrix. >>> >> >> Don't see anything in that explanation that shows how the E-matrix >> predicts the values of the divergences of the electric and magnetic fields. > > The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent......why?.....because the E-strings > that compose of the E-Matrix obey the inverse square law. See page 45 to 47 of my book. The divergence is a NUMBER, Ken. If you don't know what "divergence" means, you can always look in your copy of Halliday and Resnick, where you will find more on divergence in association with Gauss' law. Right now, though, you're just babbling. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 15:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o14e4q$rg2$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #399350 |
On 11/22/2016 1:19 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, November 21, 2016 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/21/2016 6:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the >>>> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you >>>> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. >>> >>> Moron....look it up yourself. >> >> See? Your model CANNOT explain the properties of the electromagnetic >> field, despite your broad-brush claim that it can. > > Hey idiot....the explanations are as shown below: >>> The electric and magnetic fields are just stress >>> and strain in the E-Matrix. Just as Odd said. Your model CANNOT explain the electromagnetic field. No formulas for calculating the electromagnetic fields, no details of the physics involved, just a vague statement they are "stress and strain" in your imagined E-Matrix , or "look it up".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-23 10:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o14fcc$kar$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399477 |
On 11/23/2016 9:55 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Just as Odd said. Your model CANNOT explain the electromagnetic > field. No formulas for calculating the electromagnetic fields, > no details of the physics involved, just a vague statement they > are "stress and strain" in your imagined E-Matrix , or "look it > up". I'm sure that this is what Ken thinks a good explanation is. Something that is simple, short, and just generally waves hands at saying "This is due to that". This business of being able to calculate numbers and compare to measured numbers is just annoying nonsense to Ken. He can't follow those calculations in books, and so he's looking for something that avoids all that. In other words, he's not really trying to produce a physical theory. He's trying to produce something HE CAN UNDERSTAND, and he wants to call THAT a physical theory. Surely (he thinks) if it is understandable to him, then it must be better than what physicists produce. This is of course like someone who doesn't have the attention span to read a novel and so instead puts together a little comic strip and then CALLS it a novel -- and moreover a novel of higher quality because it is short. I really feel badly for Ken. He's invested so much time and effort that was a profound waste. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 07:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e7ece24-7455-4689-962f-08aef4d3dd42@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #399478 |
On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/23/2016 9:55 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Just as Odd said. Your model CANNOT explain the electromagnetic > > field. No formulas for calculating the electromagnetic fields, > > no details of the physics involved, just a vague statement they > > are "stress and strain" in your imagined E-Matrix , or "look it > > up". > > I'm sure that this is what Ken thinks a good explanation is. Something > that is simple, short, and just generally waves hands at saying "This is > due to that". This business of being able to calculate numbers and > compare to measured numbers is just annoying nonsense to Ken. Idiot Model Mechanics uses the same equations to calculate the electromagnetic fields. In addition Model Mechanics provides physical explanation for the calculations. Gee you are stupid. >He can't > follow those calculations in books, and so he's looking for something > that avoids all that. In other words, he's not really trying to produce > a physical theory. He's trying to produce something HE CAN UNDERSTAND, > and he wants to call THAT a physical theory. Surely (he thinks) if it is > understandable to him, then it must be better than what physicists produce. > > This is of course like someone who doesn't have the attention span to > read a novel and so instead puts together a little comic strip and then > CALLS it a novel -- and moreover a novel of higher quality because it is > short. > > I really feel badly for Ken. He's invested so much time and effort that > was a profound waste. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 10:13 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1ccb8$1oj7$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #399611 |
On 11/24/2016 9:47 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, November 23, 2016 at 11:16:16 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 9:55 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> Just as Odd said. Your model CANNOT explain the electromagnetic >>> field. No formulas for calculating the electromagnetic fields, >>> no details of the physics involved, just a vague statement they >>> are "stress and strain" in your imagined E-Matrix , or "look it >>> up". >> >> I'm sure that this is what Ken thinks a good explanation is. Something >> that is simple, short, and just generally waves hands at saying "This is >> due to that". This business of being able to calculate numbers and >> compare to measured numbers is just annoying nonsense to Ken. > > Idiot Model Mechanics uses the same equations to calculate the > electromagnetic fields. DERIVE those equations. Do it for your model like Maxwell did for his and Einstein did for his and Newton did for his. If you can't, you've got nothing. > In addition Model Mechanics provides physical explanation for the > calculations. Gee you are stupid. > > > >> He can't >> follow those calculations in books, and so he's looking for something >> that avoids all that. In other words, he's not really trying to produce >> a physical theory. He's trying to produce something HE CAN UNDERSTAND, >> and he wants to call THAT a physical theory. Surely (he thinks) if it is >> understandable to him, then it must be better than what physicists produce. >> >> This is of course like someone who doesn't have the attention span to >> read a novel and so instead puts together a little comic strip and then >> CALLS it a novel -- and moreover a novel of higher quality because it is >> short. >> >> I really feel badly for Ken. He's invested so much time and effort that >> was a profound waste. >> >> -- >> 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 | 2016-11-21 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o0v9kg$q72$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #399154 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, November 20, 2016 at 4:05:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 11/19/2016 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >> > Idiot....The wave-packet/E-matrix model will explain all the properties of >> > the electromagnetic field. After all the electromagnetic field is just the >> > stress and strain in the E-Matrix. >> >> > >> >> Empty claim. Show from the wave-packet/E-matrix model what values the >> divergences of the electric and magnetic fields will have. Surely you >> know what those are, since your wave-packet/E-matrix model will tell you. >Moron....look it up yourself. The electric and magnetic fields are just stress >and strain in the E-Matrix. So you can't even calculate the divergence of the electric and magnetic fields, those stresses and strains? Yet another reason why Model Mechanics is such a complete, total failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 11:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <623326ca-c75a-4d3e-8ca3-ff31ed0e95f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #398781 |
On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 10:32:59 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/18/2016 9:09 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:59:09 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 11/17/2016 2:35 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> Nope. Your sound-bite education is not doing you well. I see it > >> splattered all over your book too. > >> > >>> Does this suggest that a laser beam is not compose of photons? > >> > >> Nope. > >> > >>> Also a gamma photon is more energetic than an x-ray photon.....how does the > >>> electromagnetic field knows what kind of photon to display? > >> > >> It doesn't. The source does. > > > > In that case why do you need the field? The source produce a gamma photon and it > > travel as a particle toward the target....there is no need for the field....Right? > > Nope, not right. The source produces a quantized disturbance in the > electromagnetic field. It is this quantized disturbance that propagates, > and it is called a photon. > > > > >> > >>> My description of a photon as a wave-packet in the E-Matrix is infinitely > >>> more compatible with observations. > >> > >> Bullshit. > > > > No bullshit.....the combination of quantum/field can be replaced by the > > wave-packet/E-matrix. There is no quantum/field properties cannot be duplicated by the > > wave-packet/E-Matrix combination. > > Bullshit. As I said, you don't even know all the properties of the field > quantum. So you are making a blanket statement that B replicates > everything about A without knowing what A is. > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> 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. > >> > >> They didn't invent field quanta. They DISCOVERED them. > >> > >>> Why I am not allowed to invent wave-packets as replacement for the quantum photon? > >> > >> Because field quanta make quantitative predictions that have passed > >> experimental test. > > > > The same equations can be used for the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept to made > > quantitative predictions......except that the wave-packet/E-Matrix concept > > is much more simpler than the quantum/field concept. > > This is a continuing delusion on your part. The equations ARE NOT > SEPARATE from the concept. The equations FOLLOW FROM the concept. You > can't just replace one concept with another and just bolt on the > equations from the first concept as though it were a window air conditioner. > > In physics, the concept TELLS YOU how to write down the equations, and > different concepts lead to a different set of equations. Not necessary. For example SR and LET produced the same math. That means that the same math can have different concepts >(A few > equations may be in common, but they will differ in others. LET and SR > are classic examples of this, where the Lorentz transformations are the > same, but other equations follow from SR concepts that are different > than what LET has.) The equations lead to predictions, and the > predictions are compared to measurements. NOPE.....SR and LET give the same predictions. > > If you ever thought, "Just replace the concepts with simpler ones, but > just use the math of the more complex concepts," then you have been > operating under a horrible delusion. > > > > >> You have an IDEA you call wave-packets, but you do > >> not make any *quantitative* predictions that can be tested against > >> experiment with them. > > > > Model Mechanics provide simpler explanation than the field/quantum > > concept for the math of quantum mechanics. Therefore it is a preferred. > > It is the same as SR used the LT to explain his concept of space-time. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web