Re: Small enough- to be zero?

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Small enough- to be zero?
Date	2016-07-21 14:20 +0000
Organization	The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID	<nmqlo2$i2r$1@pcls7.std.com> (permalink)
References	(3 earlier) <f0cec522-e44a-49c8-a352-c574a046d89b@googlegroups.com> <ccddf0b2-02ce-45f7-8607-0c900074c970@googlegroups.com> <46c420a6-5807-460c-b9ba-669fda1dd39b@googlegroups.com> <nmp24k$ju1$2@gioia.aioe.org> <07d7cb62-2581-4eb5-966d-2b0752137168@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Sergio said
>"d. none of the above "
>Bzzt!! Wrong!
>From whereverpedia 
>"
>Buckminsterfullerene is a spherical fullerene molecule with the formula C>₆₀. It has a cage-like fused-ring structure which resembles> a football, made of twenty hexagons and twelve pentagons, with ... Wikiped>ia"
>In this case, "football" is a soccer ball
>for you Americans that waited behind

Yeah, but so what?  Or are you going to claim that buckminsterfullerene is
proof that those creatures "on the next level down" are huge soccer fans?

Thread

Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 11:11 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:18 -0500
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-20 12:57 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 16:30 -0500
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:45 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:06 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:16 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:42 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:59 -0700
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:58 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:32 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:03 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 20:06 -0500
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 14:20 +0000
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:51 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 08:25 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:36 -0400
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-22 14:05 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-07-22 14:52 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-21 15:25 +0000
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:25 -0700
                Re: Small enough- to be zero? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-22 00:48 +0000
                haxacontaDELTAhedronic noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:47 -0700
                stab a guess (or an i.s.i.s): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:52 -0700
                stab a guess (or those flamethrowers): hexacontaDELTAhedron a.k.a C_sixty noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:27 -0700
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:55 -0400
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:04 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:37 -0400
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:44 -0700
              Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:33 -0400
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-20 18:39 -0500
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 02:08 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? "Eduardo J. Berringer" <invalid@example.com> - 2016-07-24 11:21 -0700
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-24 12:48 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:39 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 15:21 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 16:49 -0400
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-22 12:04 +1000
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-07-21 23:54 -0700
      Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-23 11:57 +1000
        Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:01 -0400
          Re: Small enough- to be zero? Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-24 10:52 +1000
            Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 21:25 -0400
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:09 -0700
  Re: Small enough- to be zero? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:31 -0700
    Re: Small enough- to be zero? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:20 -0400

csiph-web