Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #616141 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2023-07-27 19:27 +0200 |
| Last post | 2023-08-23 09:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 392 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 19:27 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 11:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-27 12:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 21:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 23:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 00:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-07-28 07:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 08:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-07-27 13:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-28 09:47 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-27 22:59 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-27 16:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-28 13:33 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-28 05:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 02:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:23 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 04:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 12:39 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-29 05:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 21:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 09:36 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 02:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:18 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 06:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-31 15:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 16:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 05:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 06:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 07:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 09:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 19:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 06:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 10:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 12:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 19:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 21:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-02 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 04:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 05:15 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-02 10:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 12:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 04:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 04:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 05:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 06:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 08:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 12:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 13:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 16:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-03 18:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 19:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 03:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 03:30 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 06:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:24 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 06:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 10:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 11:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-04 12:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-08-04 12:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 21:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 16:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-04 16:28 +0300
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 09:42 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 23:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 07:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-08 13:44 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 20:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-08 21:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-09 06:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-09 22:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 00:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-10 02:00 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-10 18:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-07-29 20:06 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-14 09:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 12:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-15 11:20 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 18:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-16 15:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 09:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 00:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 13:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-20 10:38 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-24 12:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:41 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-30 20:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 02:31 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 02:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 04:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 09:48 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 07:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-31 23:37 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 22:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 03:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 04:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 05:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 22:06 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 15:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 11:51 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 09:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 10:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-02 12:08 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 10:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 04:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 07:40 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 17:55 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 10:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 19:44 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 08:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 19:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-03 14:56 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-04 21:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 14:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-03 13:38 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 11:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 21:12 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 22:51 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 22:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 10:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-03 15:05 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 23:17 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-02 23:24 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 16:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 12:50 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2023-08-03 21:16 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-03 13:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-03 22:15 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 22:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 12:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mechael Hazeev <llee@hmelvave.ah> - 2023-07-31 20:23 +0000
From Russia With (was Re: Dunning-Kruger examples) whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-08-01 18:38 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 13:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 14:51 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:07 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-01 02:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-01 11:59 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 08:29 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 08:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 15:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 16:19 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-05 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 01:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 09:45 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 12:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Richard Hachel <r.hachel@frite.fr> - 2023-08-05 21:23 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-05 21:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-06 05:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 07:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-06 21:17 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-06 14:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-07 10:29 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 01:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-07 12:02 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-07 20:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-07 09:32 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-12 10:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 17:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 02:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-12 17:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-12 21:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 01:31 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-13 11:23 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 08:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-13 09:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-13 10:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 05:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 08:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 09:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 11:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 16:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-14 19:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 21:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 02:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 12:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 02:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 12:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-17 02:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 11:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-14 22:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 02:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 05:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-16 17:13 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 22:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-17 05:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 12:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 22:40 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 01:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-18 17:46 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 01:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 04:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 04:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 12:31 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-19 21:35 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-20 04:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 05:02 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 06:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 09:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 06:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 16:38 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 16:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 05:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 23:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 07:17 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-21 18:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-22 05:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 00:27 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 11:08 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 06:53 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-23 16:19 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-23 08:06 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 10:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 16:40 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 16:55 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 15:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-23 20:08 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 01:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:38 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 11:29 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-24 15:02 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 20:16 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:30 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 22:58 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-24 20:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-25 15:58 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 15:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-25 16:07 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 02:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 04:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-26 14:41 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 04:04 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 04:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-26 05:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 06:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-26 12:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:18 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-26 09:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-26 22:19 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:10 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 01:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:40 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-27 02:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-25 22:24 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Edgardo Yudelevich <edal@ouoygerr.cu> - 2023-08-26 21:41 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 20:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 13:46 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 20:20 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 14:32 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 23:04 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-26 11:41 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 11:26 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-08-24 15:37 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 13:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-24 23:06 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-17 22:33 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 19:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 02:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 12:45 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 04:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 04:25 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-17 21:12 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-18 10:53 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 02:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:02 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 04:49 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 06:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-18 12:36 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 19:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 01:56 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 09:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 22:00 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 15:40 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger exampleshn nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-22 22:58 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-19 00:22 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-19 00:39 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-23 01:47 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Brouce Vil <ibiu@bculrlcu.oc> - 2023-08-23 21:55 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Physfitfreak <Physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 17:33 -0500
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mechael Pazi <pphe@lmhecacz.ha> - 2023-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Osvani Dobronos <dsio@iaboroor.ov> - 2023-08-18 22:07 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 17:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 07:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:34 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 09:55 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 11:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-08-16 10:28 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 01:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-15 05:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 15:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 21:57 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-15 22:44 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 01:43 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 02:58 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 03:41 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 04:07 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 04:15 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-16 05:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-16 15:28 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-16 16:46 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-18 15:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 15:59 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-18 17:09 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-19 12:03 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 12:40 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-19 17:54 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-20 04:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:11 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-21 04:22 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Bill <davos2329@gmail.com> - 2023-08-20 10:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-23 14:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 04:18 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-08-24 17:26 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2023-08-07 13:50 +0300
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-08-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> - 2023-07-31 06:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 03:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-31 09:37 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-07-31 13:01 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-02 15:50 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-02 17:05 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-08-04 16:23 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2023-08-04 17:35 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-07-28 01:10 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Hershel Awtomovitch <ecwt@timhaheo.et> - 2023-07-28 12:38 +0000
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-28 13:14 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 10:37 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 11:00 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-07-29 12:39 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 05:13 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:21 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-07-29 15:33 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-07-29 11:08 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-08-22 22:08 -0400
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-08-22 21:48 -0700
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-08-23 08:42 +0200
Re: Dunning-Kruger examples Stefhen Hanok <ttsk@asskohan.fn> - 2023-08-23 09:01 +0000
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-27 01:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d20b548c-b382-4b6a-a41f-d114a1641aa7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618948 |
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:10:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 8/25/2023 7:07 PM, Lou wrote: > > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 23:18:44 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > >> On Friday, August 25, 2023 at 2:58:22 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote: > >>> On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote: > >> > >>>> it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays. > >>> Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy > >>> (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas. > >> That's 62.5 MeV in the pion frame. In the lab frame, experiments > >> cited by Filippas and Fox measured (1) the aberration between > >> the gamma pairs, and (2) the Doppler energy difference between > >> the forwards and the rear gamma rays of each pair. The > >> measured aberrations and Doppler energy differences were entirely > >> consistent with what one would expect from π⁰ traveling at 0.2 c, > >> which is the theoretical value easily computed from the mass > >> difference between the reactants and products, as I demonstrated > >> a few posts back. > >> > >> This is not handwaving. The measurements all fit together in a > >> consistent narrative supporting the reality of the particles > >> participating in the cited reactions. > >> > >> Lou's skepticism is based on sheer ignorance. > > > > Obviously you think it is ignorant to take observed data into account. > It is you who is doing that. Psychological projection again. Yes Volney..I imagined that Fermilab just discovered that muons arent doing what theory predicts they should do. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/aug/new-measurement-particle-wobble-hints-new-physics#:~:text=Importantly%2C%20muons%20are%20also%20magnetic,wobble%2C%20or%20 And I imagined that HAWC data just supplied data completely inconsistent with the standard models fantasy predictions. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.00815.pdf > > And smart to ignore data and pretend fantasies and assumptions > > are the same as observations. > Again, it is you who is doing that. > > What do you detect in Filipas? > > > The only thing detected is....gammarays at 68MeV. > Which have the same speed, c, both forwards and backwards. The gammas > are the ones matching the already known decay of neutral pions. And an emission model also predicts gammarays produced by the target H atoms at c in the lab frame. Isotropically to both detectors. > > They don’t come with name tags saying ‘if lost please > > return to neutral pions owners at Fermilab’. > Why are you *still* whining about the existence of neutral pions? Well > understood science. > > Sorry to break the news to you. > > And seeing as you have NO actual observations of neutral pions anywhere > Except from all the particle accelerators everywhere. > > and no proof coincident detections at 5&6 cannot be from > > emission waves produced by H atoms... > Except there are so many of them compared to gammas of other energies. > Sure, of thousands of events you could probably be able to say there may > be 1 or 2 false detections but the other 99.99% of them? It is > statistically absurd. These days they derive the probability a result > could be happenstance, it's always part of the paper on the experiment. > It's always very low. H atoms can easily account for all the observed g rays at detectors 5&6. Because we know H atoms can produce copious amounts of G rays at the energies observed. > > Then it is you who’s skepticism is based on fact free ignorance. > > Because I can prove: > > 1)That emr is a wave. > Overly simplified. Photons have particle-like behavior as well. All particle like behaviour of emr can be explained by waves only. Wheras particles cannot explain all wave like properties of light. > > 2)That emr waves emitted isotropically can create coincident ‘detections’ > > at seperate detectors > At very low probabilities. Only if you ignore data like the recent HAWC data. > > 3)That H atoms can emit 1eV ,68MeV, or 200GeV gammarays if neccesary. > Any interaction more than about 20eV requires an interaction in > hydrogen. Such as π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n --> gammas. Or fusion (which really > isn't from the hydrogen any longer but the daughter nucleus) Only if you believe in the fantasy model. AND , ignore empirical evidence showing atoms can emit huge amounts of radiation at energies from radio to 200GeV. > > 4) That all atoms, including H atoms will emit comparable > > Energies when stimulated by similar input energies. > Energies more than the recombination of electrons with nuclei will be in > the few eV energy range for hydrogen. (X-ray energy for heavy elements) Only if you ignore all the data. As all supporters of the standard model do. > > 5) And that the input energies from the proton beam at Filipas is roughly > > the same energies as that energy emr produced in response by the H target. > Producing the .2c energy of the generated π⁰. > > Those are called facts. > > Yours are called fantasy assumptions. > Fantasy is whining that π⁰ cannot exist because you can't understand them. Your fantasy is that you can’t tell the difference between assumed and observed. And your neutral pions are...imaginary. Never observed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40dd01ac-e848-43e6-a1e5-782f9d9c165bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618876 |
On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:58:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote: > > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote: > >>> On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote: > >> > >>>> And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV. > >>> > >>> Through intermediates like pions. > >> Tom Roberts writes: > >> > >>> Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are > >>> thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 > >>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to > >>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as > >>> you claim). > >> Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. > >> > >> It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun > >> produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment. > > > > Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient. > It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient. > > Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved > are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is > released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion. Usual fact free nonsense. The standard model knows SFA about how the sun or how the Filipas proton beam produces energies observed. Otherwise it’s predictions that 200GeV hard g rays from the sun were impossible under theory ....wouldn’t have been so spectacularly refuted by recent HAWC and Fermi data. Not to mention your fantasy model said the 7 times abundance of G rays recently detected coming from the sun was also impossible. 😂 > > Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies. > Which is what you do. > > You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone > involved with particle accelerators. > > > Facts are: > > Neutral pions exist. > Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely > π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n. > Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back. A fact free assumption. You never detect any imaginary neutral pions. You assume the g ray emissions from the H atoms detected at 5&6 are actually from imaginary neutral pions. And you can’t prove otherwise. Because your lousy standard model, which failed all of its predictions non stop since it was invented, also cannot explain how H atoms can emit g rays at 68MeV energies in Filipas. Since recent data on H emissions from sun show these much smaller 68MeV detections are easily accounted for. Not least because that is the sort of energies the proton beam particles are delivering to the H atoms in the experiment. It’s a well documented fact that if an atom is stimulated by a input energy of x ....it will respond by producing emr emissions of roughly the same energies. As observed in Filipas. A fact you are desperate to ignore. > > Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions) > Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by > complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own > actions. Psychological projection. > > it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays. > Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy > (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas. You imagine 2 paired photons. But light is a wave only. And there are no such things as paired photons except in fevered fantasies at CERN. Coincident 68MeV detections at 5&6 are actually just g ray waves produced by H atoms hitting both detectors within the same narrow ns “ binned” time frames. Easily explained by an ether free emission model. > Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of > low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy. > > That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies > > of the standard model. > The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and > evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and > don't factor into this type of experiment. The standard model is supported by zero science. It’s all assumptions. Starting off with the fact free Bohr shell model which failed almost the day it was proposed. Through to the standard models recently failed assumptions about muons and solar g rays.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 11:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ucd6d1$kp8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618897 |
On 8/25/2023 6:52 PM, Lou wrote: > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:58:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote: >>> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >>>> On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote: >>>>> On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote: >>>> >>>>>> And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV. >>>>> >>>>> Through intermediates like pions. >>>> Tom Roberts writes: >>>> >>>>> Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are >>>>> thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 >>>>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to >>>>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as >>>>> you claim). >>>> Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. >>>> >>>> It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun >>>> produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment. >>> >>> Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient. >> It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient. >> >> Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved >> are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is >> released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion. > > Usual fact free nonsense. The standard model knows SFA about how > the sun or how the Filipas proton beam produces energies observed. > Otherwise it’s predictions that 200GeV hard g rays from the sun > were impossible under theory ....wouldn’t have been so > spectacularly refuted by recent HAWC and Fermi data. > Not to mention your fantasy model said the 7 times abundance of G rays > recently detected coming from the sun was > also impossible. 😂 > >>> Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies. >> Which is what you do. >> >> You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone >> involved with particle accelerators. >> >>> Facts are: >> >> Neutral pions exist. >> Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely >> π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n. >> Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back. > > A fact free assumption. You never detect any imaginary neutral pions. I haven't, but real scientists with real equipment have. > You assume the g ray emissions from the H atoms detected at 5&6 > are actually from imaginary neutral pions. Statistics that they weren't is absurdly unlikely. > And you can’t prove otherwise. Nothing is EVER proven in physics. Just disproven. > Because your lousy standard model, which failed all of its predictions non stop > since it was invented, If it failed so badly it would have abandoned long ago. Why do you claim it was such a failure? > also cannot explain how H atoms can emit g rays I can explain it in one word. Fusion. So can the standard model. Why do you keep bringing up fusion gammas since they are well understood and are irrelevant to F-F? > at 68MeV energies in Filipas. Since recent data on H emissions from sun > show these much smaller 68MeV detections are easily accounted for. You have been corrected before. Why do you keep saying they're 68 MeV gammas? Are you just typing something in from some kook literature which has that mistake? > Not least because that is the sort of energies the proton beam > particles are delivering to the H atoms in the experiment. > It’s a well documented fact that if an atom is stimulated by > a input energy of x ....it will respond by producing emr emissions > of roughly the same energies. By interactions...such as the ones creating the π⁰. > As observed in Filipas. Filippas takes advantage of that, using the generated π⁰s to create gammas from a moving source. > A fact you are desperate to ignore. Wrong. You are the one trying to ignore such thing as π⁰. >>> Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions) >> Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by >> complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own >> actions. Psychological projection. >>> it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays. >> Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy >> (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas. > > You imagine 2 paired photons. But light is a wave only. Nope. Photons have been demonstrated and they have particle-like characteristics, particularly at high energy. Wave behavior is from a mass behavior of photons, here there are only two and they're not even traveling together. > And there are > no such things as paired photons except in fevered fantasies at CERN. Nope. Observed from the pairs of pair production of the gammas even in the bubble chamber days. > Coincident 68MeV detections at 5&6 are actually just g ray > waves produced by H atoms hitting both detectors within the same > narrow ns “ binned” time frames. Easily explained by an ether free > emission model. That is your uneducated opinion. Real scientists have evidence. > >> Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of >> low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy. >>> That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies >>> of the standard model. >> The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and >> evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and >> don't factor into this type of experiment. > > The standard model is supported by zero science. Say what? What about even just CERN? There are LOADS of science on the standard model! > Starting off with the fact free Bohr shell model which failed > almost the day it was proposed. It is no longer used. It was known to have problems but was the best model until something better, Schrödinger, came along, exactly as expected. > Through to the standard models recently > failed assumptions about muons and solar g rays. Muons are still known to exist. Fusion gammas aren't relevant here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lou <noelturntive@live.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-27 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbd8beea-5e54-4906-b85c-3762db7167b4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618951 |
On Saturday, 26 August 2023 at 16:40:20 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > On 8/25/2023 6:52 PM, Lou wrote: > > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 20:58:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote: > >>> On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >>>> On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote: > >>>>> On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV. > >>>>> > >>>>> Through intermediates like pions. > >>>> Tom Roberts writes: > >>>> > >>>>> Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are > >>>>> thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 > >>>>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to > >>>>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as > >>>>> you claim). > >>>> Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. > >>>> > >>>> It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun > >>>> produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment. > >>> > >>> Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient. > >> It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient. > >> > >> Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved > >> are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is > >> released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar fusion. > > > > Usual fact free nonsense. The standard model knows SFA about how > > the sun or how the Filipas proton beam produces energies observed. > > Otherwise it’s predictions that 200GeV hard g rays from the sun > > were impossible under theory ....wouldn’t have been so > > spectacularly refuted by recent HAWC and Fermi data. > > Not to mention your fantasy model said the 7 times abundance of G rays > > recently detected coming from the sun was > > also impossible. 😂 > > > >>> Ignore the facts when the facts dont fit the fantasies. > >> Which is what you do. > >> > >> You ignore the existence of neutral pions. They are well known by anyone > >> involved with particle accelerators. > >> > >>> Facts are: > >> > >> Neutral pions exist. > >> Neutral pions are regularly created by the reaction used in F-F, namely > >> π⁻ + p --> π⁰ + n. > >> Neutral pions usually decay into 2 62.5 MeV gammas back to back. > > > > A fact free assumption. You never detect any imaginary neutral pions. > I haven't, but real scientists with real equipment have. > > You assume the g ray emissions from the H atoms detected at 5&6 > > are actually from imaginary neutral pions. > Statistics that they weren't is absurdly unlikely. > > And you can’t prove otherwise. > Nothing is EVER proven in physics. Just disproven. > > Because your lousy standard model, which failed all of its predictions non stop > > since it was invented, > If it failed so badly it would have abandoned long ago. Why do you claim > it was such a failure? JWST data, fermilab data HAWC data. And that’s just the last few months of data from almost 100 years of failure of the standard model. Starting with Bohrs complete electron shell model failure. > > also cannot explain how H atoms can emit g rays > I can explain it in one word. Fusion. So can the standard model. Just goes to show how little you know about physics. Atoms will emit radiation when subjected to ANY external energy input. Be it collisions , heat, emr etc. > Why do you keep bringing up fusion gammas since they are well understood > and are irrelevant to F-F? Only if you aren’t smart enough to realise that the process inside the sun is just a more extreme version of what happens in the lab > > at 68MeV energies in Filipas. Since recent data on H emissions from sun > > show these much smaller 68MeV detections are easily accounted for. > You have been corrected before. Why do you keep saying they're 68 MeV > gammas? Are you just typing something in from some kook literature which > has that mistake? I read the FF paper. Where did you get your energies? > > Not least because that is the sort of energies the proton beam > > particles are delivering to the H atoms in the experiment. > > It’s a well documented fact that if an atom is stimulated by > > a input energy of x ....it will respond by producing emr emissions > > of roughly the same energies. > By interactions...such as the ones creating the π⁰. > > As observed in Filipas. > > Filippas takes advantage of that, using the generated π⁰s to create > gammas from a moving source. > > A fact you are desperate to ignore. > Wrong. You are the one trying to ignore such thing as π⁰. > >>> Looking at the facts ( not the fantasy never observed neutral pions) > >> Again, a fine example how you are the one who ignores facts by > >> complaining that the π⁰ is "fantasy". You accuse others of your own > >> actions. Psychological projection. > > >>> it is more reasonable to assume H atoms emitted 68MeV g rays. > > >> Nope. Not when there's a large quantity of gammas at a specific energy > >> (62.5 MeV) back to back. Too unusual to be part of random gammas. > > > > You imagine 2 paired photons. But light is a wave only. > Nope. Photons have been demonstrated and they have particle-like > characteristics, particularly at high energy. Wave behavior is from a > mass behavior of photons, here there are only two and they're not even > traveling together. QT is a fact free nonsense theory. Light is a wave only. And you have zero evidence to prove otherwise. > > And there are > > no such things as paired photons except in fevered fantasies at CERN. > Nope. Observed from the pairs of pair production of the gammas even in > the bubble chamber days. > > Coincident 68MeV detections at 5&6 are actually just g ray > > waves produced by H atoms hitting both detectors within the same > > narrow ns “ binned” time frames. Easily explained by an ether free > > emission model. > That is your uneducated opinion. Real scientists have evidence. > > “Real scientists”. You mean the ones who are responsible for the complete Utter and continuing failures of theory in light of recent data provided by JWST,fermilab, HAWC data and many others ? Scientists?! > >> Also incoming π⁻ usually releases its energy as thousands/millions of > >> low energy gammas. This is experimental data, not fantasy. > >>> That is unless you don’t like the facts and prefer the fantasies > >>> of the standard model. > >> The standard model is supported by actual scientific observations and > >> evidence. There is no fantasy. The speculative parts have support and > >> don't factor into this type of experiment. > > > > The standard model is supported by zero science. > Say what? What about even just CERN? There are LOADS of science on the > standard model! > > Starting off with the fact free Bohr shell model which failed > > almost the day it was proposed. > It is no longer used. It was known to have problems but was the best > model until something better, Schrödinger, came along, exactly as expected. > > Through to the standard models recently > > failed assumptions about muons and solar g rays. > Muons are still known to exist. Fusion gammas aren't relevant here. If the theory of physics of the sun we’re only possible under your preferred theory....JWST HAWC and Fermilab just showed us that the theorists know SFA about fusion, about how the sun produces radiation or what atoms are even made of. “Muons are known to exist” !!! With wobbles or without?😂🤣
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 22:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dd53a9aa-fb32-43c8-97b5-7ee37cbd97den@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618876 |
On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 21:58:22 UTC+2, Volney wrote: > On 8/24/2023 11:24 PM, Lou wrote: > > On Friday, 25 August 2023 at 03:58:52 UTC+1, Volney wrote: > >> On 8/24/2023 10:30 PM, Volney wrote: > >>> On 8/24/2023 2:29 PM, Lou wrote: > >> > >>>> And B) H atoms can emit g rays up to 200GeV. > >>> > >>> Through intermediates like pions. > >> Tom Roberts writes: > >> > >>> Their experiment is not "this sort" of physical situation -- you are > >>> thinking of the sun in which the hydrogen IONS are at a temperature >2E7 > >>> K and a pressure >2E11 bar. That is sufficient for the hydrogen IONS to > >>> interact via fusion. The gammas are emitted up to ~200 MeV (not GeV as > >>> you claim). > >> Oh crap. I didn't realize Lou must have been writing about solar fusion. > >> > >> It may be true that fusion at zillions of K at the center of the sun > >> produce such gammas, but is entirely irrelevant for the F-F π⁰ experiment. > > > > Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient. > It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient. And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot, stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your moronic religion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgardo Yudelevich <edal@ouoygerr.cu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ucdrie$p1e4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618876 |
Volney wrote: >> Yes Volney. Ignore the data when it’s not convenient. > > It is you who ignores the data when it’s not convenient. > Fusion reactions are completely irrelevant since the energies involved > are nowhere close to that required for fusion. Plus the energy is > released by the intermediate products and resulting helium in solar > fusion. illucid. 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 is making big money on this war. He is not working for free. 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗽𝗮𝘆, 𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗷𝗼𝗯. It's in his culture and his Nature. The 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆 has to make big money 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼. Ukurina ukurina, but he changes his name and moves to america, when the polaks don't want to die for ukurina anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-23 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56dd0785-7f08-4718-9fa1-d847fcca774bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618714 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 4:40:13 PM UTC-5, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase > > Homolog wrote: > > > >> The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n > > > > There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was not > > mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper. > > > > π- + p ==> n + γ > > > > The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than the > > paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so gammas > > resulting from this competing reaction would be easily > > distinguishable. > There are other competing reactions, including: > > a) π- + p ==> π- + p + γ > (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy) > b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more γ > (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the > first is the mechanism for beam energy loss) > c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several results > (all of which have one or more γ) "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly always do from your posts. :-) > Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly always > ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two reactions you > mention (they require very low-energy π-, which invariably get captured > into a Pionic Atom first). So the energies measured in the lab frame of the gamma pair from decay of the π0 should not very by more than a relatively few eV from the values calculated in the rest frame. Nice to know. I haven't had a chance to follow up on the two papers that Filippas & Fox refer to which measured the Doppler energy shift and the aberration angle of the emitted pair. (Cassels et al 1959 and Panofsky et al 1951) Unfortunately, there is too much recent stuff going on in CRISPR for me to devote much time to physics. https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.add8643 Even though I haven't worked in the field for nearly 30 years, there is a -terrible- anomaly in the textbook description of how a certain genetic element is synthesized which is worth addressing in a short note, which maybe I can get published as a letter to the editor. People are so interested in CRISPR as a tool, that they forget all about its fundamental biology. So I've been spending -far- more time catching up on the last three decades of genetic engineering than I do on physics, which is really just a hobby. Plus I work full time as a software engineer, so I don't get much sleep. :-( > For all of these the γ are very low energy, also easily distinguished > from π0 decays. > > The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, and I > have only scratched the surface.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 13:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc851h$3i9t0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618739 |
On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a > "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but > I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly > always do from your posts. :-) > There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because of its strong interaction with the nucleus. Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 20:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfzhiy.1xaf37mq2zqkdN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618772 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > > "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a > > "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but > > I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly > > always do from your posts. :-) > > > There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have > been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for > the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie > Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be > replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An > electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because > of its strong interaction with the nucleus. > > Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles > creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting. Then you should also like muonic molecules, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 14:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc87nm$3itgn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618781 |
On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: >> >>> "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a >>> "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but >>> I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly >>> always do from your posts. :-) >>> >> There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have >> been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for >> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie >> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be >> replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An >> electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because >> of its strong interaction with the nucleus. >> >> Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles >> creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting. > > Then you should also like muonic molecules, I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long enough to form molecules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfzpdl.k1aqsi1l4h3kxN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618785 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > >> > >>> "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a > >>> "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but > >>> I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly > >>> always do from your posts. :-) > >>> > >> There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have > >> been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for > >> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie > >> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be > >> replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An > >> electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because > >> of its strong interaction with the nucleus. > >> > >> Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles > >> creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting. > > > > Then you should also like muonic molecules, > > I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long > enough to form molecules. See under 'muon catalysed fusion'. Hardly news, it was already discovered in first bubble chamber experiments, Jan PS Would have to look again, but I iirc it was discovered for the HD -> He3 reaction in natural hydrogen, with naturally occurring Deuterium. (by one of those ancient great names) Second thought, it will probably have been the muonic HD+ ion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc95n7$3rf0r$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618806 |
On 8/24/2023 5:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a >>>>> "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but >>>>> I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly >>>>> always do from your posts. :-) >>>>> >>>> There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have >>>> been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for >>>> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie >>>> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be >>>> replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An >>>> electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because >>>> of its strong interaction with the nucleus. >>>> >>>> Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles >>>> creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting. >>> >>> Then you should also like muonic molecules, >> >> I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long >> enough to form molecules. > > See under 'muon catalysed fusion'. Hardly news, > it was already discovered in first bubble chamber experiments, > > Jan > > PS Would have to look again, > but I iirc it was discovered for the HD -> He3 reaction > in natural hydrogen, with naturally occurring Deuterium. > (by one of those ancient great names) > Second thought, it will probably have been the muonic HD+ ion. Oh I thought the concept was there was a muonic D atom which encountered a free D+ or H+ ion which could get close enough without being repelled because of the small atomic size. But a muonic HD+ ion would make more sense. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-25 21:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qg0i5y.8yzckm7rpeuuN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618829 |
Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 8/24/2023 5:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > >> On 8/24/2023 2:20 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 8/23/2023 11:59 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> "Pionic Atom". I knew this had to exist (referring to it as a > >>>>> "transitional pion-proton intermediate" in an earlier post) but > >>>>> I didn't know the vocabulary term. Learned something. I nearly > >>>>> always do from your posts. :-) > >>>>> > >>>> There are lots of exotic atoms which have been created. Electrons have > >>>> been replaced by muons and they behave more like normal atoms except for > >>>> the mass difference and the muons decay in microseconds. (meaning Archie > >>>> Plutonium is 99.99% wrong instead of 100% wrong). A nucleus can be > >>>> replaced by a positive muon, pion or other positive particle. An > >>>> electron replaced by a negative pion which behaves differently because > >>>> of its strong interaction with the nucleus. > >>>> > >>>> Also protons and neutrons can be replaced by strange lambda particles > >>>> creating oddball "hypernuclei". I find these particularly interesting. > >>> > >>> Then you should also like muonic molecules, > >> > >> I would! I haven't heard of them, or of exotic atoms that last long > >> enough to form molecules. > > > > See under 'muon catalysed fusion'. Hardly news, > > it was already discovered in first bubble chamber experiments, > > > > Jan > > > > PS Would have to look again, > > but I iirc it was discovered for the HD -> He3 reaction > > in natural hydrogen, with naturally occurring Deuterium. > > (by one of those ancient great names) > > Second thought, it will probably have been the muonic HD+ ion. > > Oh I thought the concept was there was a muonic D atom which encountered > a free D+ or H+ ion which could get close enough without being repelled > because of the small atomic size. But a muonic HD+ ion would make more > sense. These isolated muonic H-atoms will probably exist too. After all, you start out with muons and H2 or HD, or D2 molecules in a bubble chamber. There is more than enough energy in muon capture to disrupt the H2 bond. Nevertheless, formation of the H-muon-H (or D) bound state seems to be the most likely pathway. This (H-mu-D)^+ bound state ion is so small that it can function as a quasi-nucleus to bind an electron to form a neutral muonic HD molecule. AFAIK there are never enough nuons around to make a double-muonic H2 molecule. Whatever, it doesn't really matter for what will happen next, (a muonic H-atom will just disappear once the muon decays with nothing of special interest happening) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-26 11:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ucd6fe$kp8d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618875 |
On 8/25/2023 3:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> wrote: [] > These isolated muonic H-atoms will probably exist too. > After all, you start out with muons > and H2 or HD, or D2 molecules in a bubble chamber. > There is more than enough energy in muon capture to disrupt the H2 bond. > > Nevertheless, formation of the H-muon-H (or D) bound state > seems to be the most likely pathway. > This (H-mu-D)^+ bound state ion is so small > that it can function as a quasi-nucleus to bind an electron > to form a neutral muonic HD molecule. > AFAIK there are never enough nuons around > to make a double-muonic H2 molecule. > > Whatever, it doesn't really matter for what will happen next, > (a muonic H-atom will just disappear once the muon decays > with nothing of special interest happening) Thanks. Interesting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 11:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfymjd.gfw3pwevga6sN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618714 |
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > > On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase > > Homolog wrote: > > > >> The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n > > > > There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was not > > mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper. > > > > π- + p ==> n + ? > > > > The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than the > > paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so gammas > > resulting from this competing reaction would be easily > > distinguishable. > > There are other competing reactions, including: > > a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? > (bremstrahlung - rare at this low energy) > b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more ? > (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the > first is the mechanism for beam energy loss) > c) π- capture into a Pionic Atom => several results > (all of which have one or more ?) > > Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly always > ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two reactions you > mention (they require very low-energy π-, which invariably get captured > into a Pionic Atom first). > > For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily distinguished > from π0 decays. > > The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, and I > have only scratched the surface. But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon. This is easy to understand in terms of quarks. The pi- is (anti-up,down) so with charge -2/3+(-1/3) = -1 and the proton, which is (up,up,down) so with charge 2/3+2/3-1/3 = +1 Now the anti-up from the pion can annihilate with an up from the proton (by the electromagnitic interaction) into a single photon of about 140 MeV. It leaves (up,down,down) which is of course a neutron. The photon line must be sharp, because the neutron is too heavy to take up much kinetic energy. (it does take up the missing momentum though) This set the stage for the discovery of the neutral pion. It was the solution to the puzzle: why both single photons at about the pion rest mass, and also pairs of photons at about half that? It also needed the theoretical understanding that the neutral pion must decay into an even number of photons. (by c-parity) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 15:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5-ednV1kldIIInr5nZ2dnZfqlJxj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #618755 |
On 8/24/23 4:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic >>> Capase Homolog wrote: >>> >>>> The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n >>> >>> There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was >>> not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper. >>> >>> π- + p ==> n + ? >>> >>> The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than >>> the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so >>> gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily >>> distinguishable. >> >> There are other competing reactions, including: >> >> a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? (bremstrahlung - rare at this low >> energy) b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more >> ? (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the >> mechanism for beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic >> Atom => several results (all of which have one or more ?) >> >> Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly >> always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two >> reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which >> invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first). >> >> For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily >> distinguished from π0 decays. >> >> The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, >> and I have only scratched the surface. > > But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already > mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon. I was describing "other competing reactions". Ionization energy loss (b) is BY FAR the dominant interaction between a pi- and a hydrogen atom. Indeed I believe that once produced, the pi- must lose enough energy [#] to form a pionic atom before either of the charge-exchange interactions have appreciable cross-sections. [#] Via thousands to millions ionization energy loss interactions. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed1fd0b5-7051-499a-8d55-8ce01bfa32c4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #618799 |
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 22:37:54 UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/24/23 4:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Tom Roberts <tjobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >> On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic > >>> Capase Homolog wrote: > >>> > >>>> The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n > >>> > >>> There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was > >>> not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper. > >>> > >>> π- + p ==> n + ? > >>> > >>> The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than > >>> the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so > >>> gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily > >>> distinguishable. > >> > >> There are other competing reactions, including: > >> > >> a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? (bremstrahlung - rare at this low > >> energy) b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more > >> ? (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the > >> mechanism for beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic > >> Atom => several results (all of which have one or more ?) > >> > >> Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly > >> always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two > >> reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which > >> invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first). > >> > >> For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily > >> distinguished from π0 decays. > >> > >> The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, > >> and I have only scratched the surface. > > > > But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already > > mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon. > I was describing "other competing reactions". Ionization energy loss (b) > is BY FAR the dominant interaction between a pi- and a hydrogen atom. > Indeed I believe that once produced, the pi- must lose enough energy [#] > to form a pionic atom before either of the charge-exchange interactions > have appreciable cross-sections. Kookfight!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 23:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <uc95s1$3rf0r$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #618800 |
On 8/24/2023 4:44 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote: > Kookfight! > Which kꙮꙮk are you going to fight, Maciej?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-24 23:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1qfzpff.10slrafct71ngN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #618799 |
Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 8/24/23 4:26 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > >> On 8/23/23 12:18 PM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 12:27:34?PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic > >>> Capase Homolog wrote: > >>> > >>>> The overall reaction is given by π- + p ==> π0 + n > >>> > >>> There is a competing reaction that I was not aware of which was > >>> not mentioned in the Filippas and Fox paper. > >>> > >>> π- + p ==> n + ? > >>> > >>> The single gamma ray would be of entirely different energy than > >>> the paired gamma rays resulting from the decay of the π0 and so > >>> gammas resulting from this competing reaction would be easily > >>> distinguishable. > >> > >> There are other competing reactions, including: > >> > >> a) π- + p ==> π- + p + ? (bremstrahlung - rare at this low > >> energy) b) π- + H ==> π- + p + e- ==> π- + p + H' + one or more > >> ? (atomic ionization followed by e- capture; the first is the > >> mechanism for beam energy loss) c) π- capture into a Pionic > >> Atom => several results (all of which have one or more ?) > >> > >> Indeed (b) happens many times as each beam π- slows down, nearly > >> always ending with (c), which can be the precursor to the two > >> reactions you mention (they require very low-energy π-, which > >> invariably get captured into a Pionic Atom first). > >> > >> For all of these the ? are very low energy, also easily > >> distinguished from π0 decays. > >> > >> The interactions of a particle beam with matter are quite complex, > >> and I have only scratched the surface. > > > > But you missed the dominant effect here, despite prokary already > > mentioning it. It is pi- + proton going into neutron + photon. > > I was describing "other competing reactions". Ionization energy loss (b) > is BY FAR the dominant interaction between a pi- and a hydrogen atom. No doubt you are right about that, but that was not seen (and of no interest) in those early experiments in which the pi mesons were discovered and characterised. > Indeed I believe that once produced, the pi- must lose enough energy [#] > to form a pionic atom before either of the charge-exchange interactions > have appreciable cross-sections. I don't think that your 'must' is correct. The reaction can no doubt proceed from scattering states, so starting with a free pion wave function. (emitting that 140 MeV gamma 'at once' rather than going through several time-consuming de-exication steps to the pionic ground state. Detais, details, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2023-08-17 22:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ubmla2$3pnt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #617997 |
On 8/17/2023 8:28 AM, Lou wrote: > On Wednesday, 16 August 2023 at 22:13:18 UTC+1, Volney wrote: >> On 8/16/2023 4:28 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> [-] >>>> How about experiments like Alvager et al.? Because of conservation >>>> laws, the pions generated by protons impinging on a fixed target travel >>>> at 99.999+ of the speed of light, mostly in the same direction as the >>>> incident proton pulses. The neutral pions decay almost instantaneously >>>> to a pair of gamma rays, which because of conservation laws travel >>>> mostly in the same direction as the decaying pions. >>> >>> Not quite. It isn't conservation laws, >>> it is relativistic kinematics. >>> The photons are of course emitted isotropically in the pion rest frame. >>> The Lorentz transform then shrinks the forward half-sphere >>> (in the rest frame) into a narrow forward cone. (in the lab frame) >>> But Alvager et al. only detect photons that have gone precisely in the >>> forward directlion. The other photon goes backwards, and is not seen. >>> >> There's another similar experiment using neutral pions to measure the >> speed of light, the 1961 Fillipas-Fox experiment. It measured the speed >> of both the forward and backward photons from neutral pions moving at >> 0.2c. If the speed was light was emitted at c+v, the photons from a >> decay with a forward/backward photon pair should have speeds of 1.2c and >> 0.8c respectively, but both were measured to be c within experimental >> limits. This was chosen because the photons wouldn't be subject to >> extinction the way light from stars may be. > > > How does one come to the conclusion that by stopping “negative pions” in > Hydrogen that the source of g rays continues to move at v? Did you read the references in the paper? I'm sure there are a few references to the generation of neutral pions, something which was well understood by the time of the paper. Since neutral pions have mass similar to negative pions, I'm sure a big part of the answer is conservation of momentum, like with pool balls. > The excuse in the article is that far from being stopped by hydrogen, new > imaginary intermediate particles are created by these collisions. > Called “neutral pions” . Again you obviously didn't read the paper's references. Neutral pions were well known before that time and weren't invented for this paper. They were discovered in 1950. > And these continue on at whatever assumed speeds Fox has arbitrarily > assigned to these imaginary neutral pions to produce the g rays. Easily computed for the paper. The charged pions (similar mass) can have their speed measured as well. Did you bother to read the part where they calculated the speeds of the π0? > So this doesn’t neccesarily refute emission theory. Because it relies on an > imaginary intermediate particle continuing on after the beam hits the static > hydrogen target. Neutral pions (discovered in 1950) aren't imaginary. > How can you prove that these “neutral pions” have been created by the > collision of the beam with the hydrogen target? You look for their decay products. > Look at any references of this imaginary particle. They are assumed to only > exist for atto seconds. And can only be “ detected” by a release > of gammarays !!! Exactly. > Hold it a minute why can’t g rays be emitted by > Hydrogen atoms when subjected to hi energy collisions? π0 decay gammas are of a specific energy (~67 MeV) and are emitted at 180 degrees from each other in the rest frame of the pion. (this BTW is very similar to electron-positron annihilation. If there is a pair of gammas at 511 keV in opposite directions, they almost certainly came from an e-e+ annihilation. That's how PET scanners work) > After all it is common knowledge that atoms when subjected to > input radiation of lower energies will-in turn emit equivelent > lower energy radiation > > Prove to me that the hydrogen target atoms don’t release G rays when > hit by the beam generated by the Carnegievtech synchrocycloton. > You can’t. They only cared about pairs of gammas at specific energies. Gammas not happening in pairs or of different energies are not from pions and are ignored. > Notice that the two “ detectors” are located orthogonal to the Hydrogen target. > In other words all emission theory has to prove is that the non moving target > Hydrogen atoms emitted g rays at c towards the two targets. > Which is exactly what’s observed. Fillipas-Fox looked for a gamma pair going frontwards and backwards simultaneously. If the frontward gamma moved at about 1.2c and the backwards one 0.8c emission theory from a π0 moving at 0.2c is supported. If both are c, a constant speed of light is supported.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web