Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #581337 > unrolled thread

The awesome physics behind how mirrors work

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-28 18:37 -0500
    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-28 19:17 -0500
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 20:47 -0400
        Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 06:57 -0700
          Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-29 13:03 -0400
            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-29 12:18 -0500
              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 10:31 -0700
                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-29 14:16 -0500
                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 01:11 -0400
                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 01:15 -0700
                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 14:02 -0400
                      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 11:19 -0700
                        Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 21:06 -0400
                          Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-30 22:35 -0500
                            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 00:24 -0400
                          Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 23:34 -0700
                            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 01:48 -0700
                              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 03:26 -0700
                                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 06:21 -0700
                                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:43 -0400
                                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:41 -0400
                                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 07:48 -0700
                                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:08 -0400
                                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:33 -0700
                                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 17:48 -0700
                                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 18:15 -0700
                                      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 02:55 -0400
                                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 01:17 -0400
                              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:59 -0400
                              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-31 13:07 -0500
                                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 11:37 -0700
                                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 00:17 -0400
                                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 14:42 -0400
                            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 10:40 -0400
                            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:51 -0500
                              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-31 12:24 -0400
              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:34 -0500
                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-29 14:25 -0500
                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 14:54 -0500
                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-29 21:17 +0000
                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-29 16:33 -0500
                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 01:19 -0400
              how work with words start witm M noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:06 -0700
            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 10:26 -0700
              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 01:00 -0400
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 12:41 -0700
        Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-05-30 12:18 +0000
          Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 05:44 -0700
            Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 14:25 -0400
              Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-30 15:42 -0700
                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-30 21:14 -0400
                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 09:37 -0700
                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-31 13:59 -0700
                Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 16:33 -0700
                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-01 01:41 -0400
                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-01 10:46 -0500
                  Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 00:48 -0700
                    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-06-01 09:59 -0700
        light is wavey ,period noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-05-31 10:24 -0700
    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-05-28 20:38 -0400
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 12:13 -0500
        Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-05-29 13:47 -0700
    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-29 05:08 +0000
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-05-29 08:31 -0500
        Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-29 17:41 +0000
    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 08:56 -0500
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-05-29 12:04 -0500
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-29 17:36 +0000
    Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-05-29 09:00 -0500
      Re: The awesome physics behind how mirrors work jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-05-29 17:42 +0000

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#581846

On 05/31/2016 06:26 AM, HVAC drooled:
> nu...@bid.nes
> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>
> (snip pointlesssniping contest)
> ---------
>
> Endlesspointlesssniping is the only reason I come here.
>
> I understand that you and BJ were very unhappy with my answer that gravitational lensing is an example of a mirror being a non electrical conductor. That was why I said it.
>
> It was more Endlesspointlesssniping.
>
> So now I challenge you to show evidence that a gravitational lens is NOT a mirror.
>
> I'll wait right here.


A lens is a mirror! Here we go again! Waste of time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581851

BJ quacked
A lens is a mirror! Here we go again! Waste of time. 
-----------

As I predicted, BJ got mad.
Here's a crying towel, BJ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581882

On 05/31/2016 10:48 AM, HVAC drooled:
> BJ quacked
> A lens is a mirror! Here we go again! Waste of time.
> -----------
>
> As I predicted, BJ got mad.
> Here's a crying towel, BJ
>
As I predicted, HVAC has nothing.
He's been shown ignorant and still babbles on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581935

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 3:26:10 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> nu...@bid.nes
> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote: 
> 
> (snip pointlesssniping contest) 
> ---------
> 
> Endlesspointlesssniping is the only reason I come here.
> 
> I understand that you and BJ were very unhappy with my answer that
> gravitational lensing is an example of a mirror being a non electrical
> conductor. That was why I said it. 

  I wasn't unhappy at all, just interested to see if any discussion of he physics would ensue, but that didn't happen.

> It was more Endlesspointlesssniping.
> 
> So now I challenge you to show evidence that a gravitational lens is NOT a
> mirror.
> 
> I'll wait right here.

  Gravitational lensing works the same way as graded-index refraction in optical fibers; there's no phase reversal as in reflection.

  Hence a gravitational lens is not a mirror.

  Now, can you answer any of my questions?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582020

  Gravitational lensing works the same way as graded-index refraction in optical fibers; there's no phase reversal as in reflection. 

  Hence a gravitational lens is not a mirror. 

  Now, can you answer any of my questions? 


  Mark L. Fergerson
----------

Of course I can. But I could have simply googled the answers, so what does it prove? Nothing

But I totally disagree with your finding. That's why the first thing I asked was his definition of a mirror. According the the dictionary definition, a gravitational lens qualifies as a mirror. Your smug reply notwithstanding

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582028

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:48:04 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> Gravitational lensing works the same way as graded-index refraction in optical fibers; there's no phase reversal as in reflection. 
> 
>   Hence a gravitational lens is not a mirror. 
> 
>   Now, can you answer any of my questions? 
> 
> Of course I can. But I could have simply googled the answers, so what does
> it prove? Nothing

  That you'd make the effort, at least. That you have to look them up invalidates your assumption that you can criticize others for their knowledge of science.
 
> But I totally disagree with your finding.

  I don't care,

> That's why the first thing I asked was his definition of a mirror. According
> the the dictionary definition, a gravitational lens qualifies as a mirror.

  Which dictionary, and why would definition for "mirror" in an ordinary dictionary have anything to do with Einstein lensing?

> Your smug reply notwithstanding

  Aww, you mad?


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582094

On 05/31/2016 09:15 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 5:48:04 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>> Gravitational lensing works the same way as graded-index refraction in optical fibers; there's no phase reversal as in reflection.
>>
>>    Hence a gravitational lens is not a mirror.
>>
>>    Now, can you answer any of my questions?
>>
>> Of course I can. But I could have simply googled the answers, so what does
>> it prove? Nothing
>
>    That you'd make the effort, at least. That you have to look them up invalidates your assumption that you can criticize others for their knowledge of science.
>
>> But I totally disagree with your finding.
>
>    I don't care,
>
>> That's why the first thing I asked was his definition of a mirror. According
>> the the dictionary definition, a gravitational lens qualifies as a mirror.
>
>    Which dictionary, and why would definition for "mirror" in an ordinary dictionary have anything to do with Einstein lensing?
>
>> Your smug reply notwithstanding
>
>    Aww, you mad?

<SNORT!>  :-)


>    Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582070

On 05/31/2016 08:48 PM, HVAC drooled:
> Gravitational lensing works the same way as graded-index refraction
> in optical fibers; there's no phase reversal as in reflection.
>
> Hence a gravitational lens is not a mirror.
>
> Now, can you answer any of my questions?
>
>
> Mark L. Fergerson ----------
>
> Of course I can. But I could have simply googled the answers, so what
> does it prove? Nothing
>
> But I totally disagree with your finding. That's why the first thing
> I asked was his definition of a mirror. According the the dictionary
> definition, a gravitational lens qualifies as a mirror. Your smug
> reply notwithstanding

Cripes, H&V you sound like me and Odd! Dictionaries don't seem to be 
valid references around here.

WHAT HVAC learned in "college".

1. black holes are stars

2. gravity isn't a force

3. lenses are mirrors

4. Science is religion

Oh yeah...

5. Pro wrestling is all real.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581860

On 05/31/2016 04:48 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>
> (snip pointlesssniping contest)
>
>    Let's try talking physics. Here's some easy questions relevant to the topic:
>
>    When light reflects off a conductor, does its magnetic or electric field or both reverse? Hint: RF waveguides.
>
>    What about when light reflects off an insulator?
>
>    What about in the case of total internal reflection inside an insulator?
>
>    What about a semiconductor? Hint: why is fool's gold yellow?
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>
Mark takes the whip and continues to thrash the drooling babbling HVAC 
in the dunce corner he has retreated to!

Give it up Mark. HVAC is 100% science fraud. Even worse than Wormley or 
Glazier.

You "mad" Mark? :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581927

On 5/31/2016 3:48 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>
> (snip pointlesssniping contest)
>
>   Let's try talking physics. Here's some easy questions relevant to the topic:
>
>   When light reflects off a conductor, does its magnetic or electric field or both reverse? Hint: RF waveguides.
>
>   What about when light reflects off an insulator?

>
>   What about in the case of total internal reflection inside an insulator?
>
>   What about a semiconductor? Hint: why is fool's gold yellow?
>
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson


Let me know the answers, (used to know some of them, long ago)

  I think the  E field reverses bounding off a conductor, but not 
bouncing off an insulator

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581936

On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/31/2016 3:48 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
> >
> > (snip pointlesssniping contest)
> >
> >   Let's try talking physics. Here's some easy questions relevant to the
> > topic:
> >
> >   When light reflects off a conductor, does its magnetic or electric field
> > or both reverse? Hint: RF waveguides.
> >
> >   What about when light reflects off an insulator?
> >
> >   What about in the case of total internal reflection inside an insulator?
> >
> >   What about a semiconductor? Hint: why is fool's gold yellow?
> 
> Let me know the answers, (used to know some of them, long ago)
> 
>   I think the  E field reverses bounding off a conductor, but not 
> bouncing off an insulator

  Let's see HVAC's answers first, if he has any.

  Benj probably knows and I don't want to pre-empt him if he chooses to rub HVAC's mose in it.

  Also, Sam might want to weigh in with a cut-n-paste (after he looks it up).


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582055

On 05/31/2016 02:37 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2016 at 11:08:23 AM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/31/2016 3:48 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>>>
>>> (snip pointlesssniping contest)
>>>
>>>    Let's try talking physics. Here's some easy questions relevant to the
>>> topic:
>>>
>>>    When light reflects off a conductor, does its magnetic or electric field
>>> or both reverse? Hint: RF waveguides.
>>>
>>>    What about when light reflects off an insulator?
>>>
>>>    What about in the case of total internal reflection inside an insulator?
>>>
>>>    What about a semiconductor? Hint: why is fool's gold yellow?
>>
>> Let me know the answers, (used to know some of them, long ago)
>>
>>    I think the  E field reverses bounding off a conductor, but not
>> bouncing off an insulator
>
>    Let's see HVAC's answers first, if he has any.
>
>    Benj probably knows and I don't want to pre-empt him if he chooses to rub HVAC's mose in it.
>
>    Also, Sam might want to weigh in with a cut-n-paste (after he looks it up).
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson

:-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581938

On 05/31/2016 02:07 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/31/2016 3:48 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:34:41 PM UTC-7, HVAC wrote:
>>
>> (snip pointlesssniping contest)
>>
>>   Let's try talking physics. Here's some easy questions relevant to
>> the topic:
>>
>>   When light reflects off a conductor, does its magnetic or electric
>> field or both reverse? Hint: RF waveguides.
>>
>>   What about when light reflects off an insulator?
>
>>
>>   What about in the case of total internal reflection inside an
>> insulator?
>>
>>   What about a semiconductor? Hint: why is fool's gold yellow?
>>
>>
>>   Mark L. Fergerson
>
>
> Let me know the answers, (used to know some of them, long ago)
>
>   I think the  E field reverses bounding off a conductor, but not
> bouncing off an insulator

Getting warmer!

ASK HVAC about "boundary conditions".

(Of course you'll probably get some blowhard answer about Trump and the 
Mexican border wall). Hey, who is gonna pay for that wall?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581845

On 05/31/2016 02:34 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> Own up to it. I drove you into a corner and whipped you until you begged
> me for mercy! You aren't capable of explaining even the most rudimentary
> physics of how that mirror you admire yourself in every morning works.
> And you just change the subject and use your literary tricks to try to
> fool the rubes here.
>
> You know ZERO actual science. You have ZERO science education. You are
> incapable of even holding an intelligent conversation about science. You
> are so dumb you make Odd Boinker look like a man with a business card
> that says "scientist" rather than "maker of wood toys".
>
> You are as ignorant and dishonest as Glazier. You know even LESS science
> than he does (even though you do spell better).
>
> You are a LOSER. LOSER! LOSER!
> -------------
>
> As predicted, BJ is mad. Mad to the point of producing Kookfroth(tm).
>

Beaten and defeated and exposed HVAC is still keep up his con-man patter 
swearing he's educated and trying desperately to change the subject.

Yes or no, loser?

You are actually fucking dumber in science that HERB! Amazing!
(no offense)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581854

On 5/31/2016 1:34 AM, HVAC wrote:
>  You
> are so dumb you make Odd Boinker look like a man with a business card
> that says "scientist" rather than "maker of wood toys".

My business card does not say "maker of wood toys".

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581894

On 05/31/2016 10:51 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 5/31/2016 1:34 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>  You
>> are so dumb you make Odd Boinker look like a man with a business card
>> that says "scientist" rather than "maker of wood toys".
>
> My business card does not say "maker of wood toys".

If HVAC says it does, then it does. That much is settled!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581515

On 5/29/16 12:18 PM, Sergio wrote:
> Are there any mirrors made from non-conductive materials?

   One can see one's reflection in a piece of glass.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581546

On 5/29/2016 12:34 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/29/16 12:18 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> Are there any mirrors made from non-conductive materials?
>
>   One can see one's reflection in a piece of glass.
>
>
>

but the reflection is faint,
why are mirrors using metal so much better, brighter, than a reflection 
via glass, plastic, or polished non-conductor ?

(used to know this, forgot answer)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581552

On 5/29/16 2:25 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/29/2016 12:34 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 5/29/16 12:18 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> Are there any mirrors made from non-conductive materials?
>>
>>   One can see one's reflection in a piece of glass.
>>
>>
>>
>
> but the reflection is faint,
> why are mirrors using metal so much better, brighter, than a reflection
> via glass, plastic, or polished non-conductor ?
>
> (used to know this, forgot answer)


   Are you thinking of Dielectric Coatings developed originally for
   military optics used in hostile environments such as blowing desert
   sand. There is no aluminum or other reflective metal used. The
   reflective surface consists of multiple layers of thin film oxides,
   similar to those used in anti-reflection coatings.

   I have a dielectric mirror with reflectivity above 99% over the entire
   4000 to 7000 Å photo-visual range. Dielectric coatings can result in
   less scattered light.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#581579

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/29/16 2:25 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/29/2016 12:34 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 5/29/16 12:18 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> Are there any mirrors made from non-conductive materials?
>>>
>>>   One can see one's reflection in a piece of glass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> but the reflection is faint,
>> why are mirrors using metal so much better, brighter, than a reflection
>> via glass, plastic, or polished non-conductor ?
>>
>> (used to know this, forgot answer)
> 
> 
>   Are you thinking of Dielectric Coatings developed originally for
>   military optics used in hostile environments such as blowing desert
>   sand.

Oviously not, shit head.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web