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

Groups > sci.physics > #560394 > unrolled thread

LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 10:15 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:53 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 12:25 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:39 -0500
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-08 12:36 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 18:37 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 00:57 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 10:50 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 15:02 -0600
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 13:55 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 16:12 -0600
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-09 15:19 -0800
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 08:08 -0600
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 12:55 -0800
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:41 -0600
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-10 15:01 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:15 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:42 -0800
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 17:25 -0600
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:05 -0800
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:29 -0600
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 13:33 -0800
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 15:52 -0600
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-12 07:37 -0800
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:57 -0700
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 15:43 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 23:10 +0100
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 15:12 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:34 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-03-15 14:34 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:40 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-15 15:31 -0700
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:36 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-16 14:59 -0700
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 17:46 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-17 15:40 -0700
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:19 -0500
                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 14:01 -0700
                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:46 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 15:43 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 17:10 -0700
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 00:15 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:37 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:31 -0500
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:46 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:22 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-18 15:52 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:13 -0700
                                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:30 -0500
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:09 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 13:58 -0400
                                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:10 -0700
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:39 -0700
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:56 -0700
                                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:06 -0700
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:13 -0400
                                                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 12:18 -0700
                                                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 09:11 -0400
                                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 14:02 -0400
                                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:40 -0500
                                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 01:59 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-14 22:41 +0100
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 17:28 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 18:24 +0100
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:33 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-15 22:19 +0100
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:38 -0500
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-16 02:56 +0100
                                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:47 -0500
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:56 -0800
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2016-03-10 12:35 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:47 -0600
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:50 -0800
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 23:47 -0800
    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 12:13 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 14:17 -0600
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-11 12:35 -0800
      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:32 -0800
        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Enes Richard <pies_na_teorie@vp.pl> - 2016-03-14 12:46 -0700
          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:03 -0700
            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 02:25 -0700
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:52 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:01 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:30 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:08 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-17 22:35 +0100
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 17:11 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-18 00:32 +0100
              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:04 -0500
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:16 -0700
                  Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:20 -0500
                    Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:27 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:34 -0500
                        Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:37 -0700
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:49 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:56 -0700
                              Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:06 -0500
                          Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:24 -0500
                            Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 13:05 -0700
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 10:15 -0500
                      Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:16 -0700
                Re: LHC - new particle inside electron/positron and in every mass ? See, how to find. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 07:12 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#563618

On 3/18/16 4:46 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ptolemy's model did not make testable PREDICTIONS. All it did was
> post-dictions. That's what made it not a scientific theory.


   That is worth repeating!

-- 

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]

#563041

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:36:38 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/15/2016 5:31 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu wtorek, 15 marca 2016 22:34:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Double-A napisał:
> >> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:57:29 PM UTC-7, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>> W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 15:08:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
> >>>>
> >>> This means that the nucleons can be broken down into electrons
> >>> and positrons.
> >>>
> >>> There is no quarks?!?
> >>
> >>
> >> Quarks have always been a fiction.  There is no proof.
> >>
> >> Double-A
> >
> > In nature it is like this:
> >
> > -chemical compounds> 64 million
> > -chemical elements <120
> > -the components of the atom = 3
> >
> > ...and should be
> > - smaller components = 1 or 2
> 
> And indeed there are, if you are only looking at reasonably stable, 
> naturally occurring things. The one or two smaller components are the up 
> and down quarks.
> 
> But notice your own list above. The number of naturally occurring 
> elements is 94, not the 118 or so that are in the periodic table. So 
> what's the difference? The difference is that those same 3 components of 
> the atom (proton, neutron, electron) can produce MORE elements than are 
> reasonably stable and naturally occurring. It's just that some are 
> short-lived and not seen except in brief, transient conditions. But so 
> what? They are still elements and they can be accounted for by the 
> protons, neutrons, and electrons.
> 
> The same is true for quarks and what they comprise. There are only two 
> reasonably stable and naturally occurring hadrons: protons and neutrons. 
> And these can be accounted for by only up and down quarks, for the most 
> part. But there are also short-lived hadrons, just like there are 
> short-lived elements: pions, kaons, lambdas, deltas, sigmas, and so on. 
> It was precisely the detection of all these short-lived hadrons that 
> gave rise to the quark model. To account for all of them, there are six 
> quarks needed.
> 
> Now, even among the naturally occurring elements, it was discovered that 
> there is a completely natural process called beta decay, which 
> transforms one element to another. To explain this, more than the three 
> components (proton, neutron, electron) are needed; there is a fourth, 
> the neutrino, that is required. And in fact, the neutrino has been 
> directly observed since. So now there are in the host of naturally 
> occurring elements four particles (proton, neutrons, electrons, 
> neutrinos), and two of these can be accounted for by two smaller quarks 
> (up and down) making up the two hadrons, and the electron and neutrino 
> survive as leptons.
> 
> But to account for all the short lived particles, you need six quarks, 
> not just two, and six leptons, not just two. These are arranged in three 
> families of 2 quarks and 2 leptons each. This is the analog of what is 
> needed to account for all the short lived elements in the periodic table.
> 
> So to sum up, you have this idea that the number of components should 
> always reduce. There is in fact no particular law that states that in 
> physics, and it is in fact something you've made up yourself and you 
> just HOPE it's a law.
> 
> Instead, though, the way physicists describe things is this: There are 
> three families of quarks and leptons, comprising 12 components in all, 
> out of which all matter is created. From these there are hundreds of 
> observable particles, some of which are long-lived (4) and some of which 
> are short-lived (kaons, pions, omegas, sigmas, etc.). The four 
> long-lived particles can assemble into hundreds of atoms, some of which 
> are long-lived (94 of them) and some of which are short-lived (about 24 
> so far). The long-lived atoms can be built up into molecules, some of 
> which are long-lived and some of which are short-lived.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > I think just one component is sufficient to build any mass. Let's called
> > PARTMASS (mass = 1 / 4e, load = 1 / 4e - 1 / 4e = 0)
> >
> > The theory of quarks is not compatible with nature as above, is based only
> > on a mathematical abstraction. Mathematics can stretch many models to comply
> > with the experimental results.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
============================
imbecile idiot parrot babbler P D !

QUARKS ARE ONLY 10 PERCENT OF THE PROTON  MASS !!
got it idiot parrot ??
better see 
Google 
'THE Y PORAT MODEL AN ABSTRACT '
and get wiser 
================================= 

y.p

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

#562435

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/9/2016 5:19 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> 
> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
  ^^^^
Cite evidence.  In the Standard Model at least, there are 6 types of quarks 
that all have either q = +⅔e (u, c, t) or q = −⅓e (d, s, b); there are 3 
leptons (ν_e, ν_µ, ν_τ), 3 gauge bosons (g, γ, Z⁰) and 1 Higgs boson (H⁰) 
that have q = 0, and only 3 leptons (e⁻, µ⁻, τ⁻) and 1 gauge boson (W) that 
have q = −1 and q = ±1, respectively.  I do not know about your mathematics, 
but in mine 6 > 4.

[Even if one counted the W boson in your favor as two charged particles, W⁺ 
and W⁻ with q = +e and q = −e, respectively, it would still be 6:5 in favor 
of {q ≠ ±e, q ≠ 0}.  Additionally counting charged anti-leptons would not 
help you either as there are 6 types of anti-quarks, too.]

<http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/contents_tables.html>

>> Thank you, but I deal with the study of nature in a "top-down" and not
>> vice versa.
> I've heard this said before. It's the excuse of the lazy. There's no
> short-cut to physics.

Hmmm :)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#562451

On 3/14/2016 4:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/9/2016 5:19 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>
>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>    ^^^^

Sorry, I should have said most charged particles observable in the wild 
have a charge of either +e or -e. I'm of course not counting the q=0 
particles because they are not charged (and because they are not visible 
in the ALICE event display). I'm not counting fractionally charged 
quarks because they're not observable in those event displays either. So 
what it is that I'm saying is of lesser population are those with |q| = 
2e, 3d, 4e.... in these event displays.

> Cite evidence.  In the Standard Model at least, there are 6 types of quarks
> that all have either q = +⅔e (u, c, t) or q = −⅓e (d, s, b); there are 3
> leptons (ν_e, ν_µ, ν_τ), 3 gauge bosons (g, γ, Z⁰) and 1 Higgs boson (H⁰)
> that have q = 0, and only 3 leptons (e⁻, µ⁻, τ⁻) and 1 gauge boson (W) that
> have q = −1 and q = ±1, respectively.  I do not know about your mathematics,
> but in mine 6 > 4.
>
> [Even if one counted the W boson in your favor as two charged particles, W⁺
> and W⁻ with q = +e and q = −e, respectively, it would still be 6:5 in favor
> of {q ≠ ±e, q ≠ 0}.  Additionally counting charged anti-leptons would not
> help you either as there are 6 types of anti-quarks, too.]
>
> <http://pdg.lbl.gov/2015/tables/contents_tables.html>
>
>>> Thank you, but I deal with the study of nature in a "top-down" and not
>>> vice versa.
>> I've heard this said before. It's the excuse of the lazy. There's no
>> short-cut to physics.
>
> Hmmm :)
>


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

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

#562621

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/14/2016 4:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 3/9/2016 5:19 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>    ^^^^
> 
> Sorry, I should have said most charged particles observable in the wild
> have a charge of either +e or -e.

Still waiting for evidence for that coming from you.

> I'm of course not counting the q=0 particles because they are not charged 

Of course.  If you cared to read, nobody said or implied otherwise.

> (and because they are not visible in the ALICE event display).

Utter nonsense.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE:_A_Large_Ion_Collider_Experiment#Photon_Spectrometer>

> I'm not counting fractionally charged quarks because they're not
> observable in those event displays either.

More nonsense.  ALICE is *designed* to create a quark-gluon *plasma*.

> So what it is that I'm saying is of lesser population are those with |q| =
> 2e, 3d, 4e.... in these event displays.

Fallacy: Moving the goalpost.  You have claimed in general, not regarding 
detectable observations, and only with ALICE.
 
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#562624

On 3/15/2016 12:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/14/2016 4:41 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 3/9/2016 5:19 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>>> Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>>>     ^^^^
>>
>> Sorry, I should have said most charged particles observable in the wild
>> have a charge of either +e or -e.
>
> Still waiting for evidence for that coming from you.
>
>> I'm of course not counting the q=0 particles because they are not charged
>
> Of course.  If you cared to read, nobody said or implied otherwise.
>
>> (and because they are not visible in the ALICE event display).
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALICE:_A_Large_Ion_Collider_Experiment#Photon_Spectrometer>
>
>> I'm not counting fractionally charged quarks because they're not
>> observable in those event displays either.
>
> More nonsense.  ALICE is *designed* to create a quark-gluon *plasma*.
>
>> So what it is that I'm saying is of lesser population are those with |q| =
>> 2e, 3d, 4e.... in these event displays.
>
> Fallacy: Moving the goalpost.  You have claimed in general, not regarding
> detectable observations, and only with ALICE.
>
>

Sir,
Context is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.
The original post, and to which I responded, was this event display from 
the ALICE DETECTOR:
http://1t2src2grpd01c037d42usfb.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/Alicetraces.jpg

I would be delighted if you could point out in that event display:
1. The tracks belonging to photons and other q=0 particles.
2. The tracks belonging to particles with fractional charge, such as quarks.

If you lost track of context and thought that, midstream, I was making a 
general comment outside of the context of that ALICE event display, then 
allow me to correct your misperception.

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

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

#562688

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/15/2016 12:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> So what it is that I'm saying is of lesser population are those with |q|
>>> = 2e, 3d, 4e.... in these event displays.
>>
>> Fallacy: Moving the goalpost.  You have claimed in general, not regarding
>> detectable observations, and only with ALICE.
> 
> Sir,
> Context is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.

You should be more careful with your statements next time, and indeed 
*every* time.  For you cannot expect that everyone reads everything you are 
responding to in order to figure out what you may have meant; especially not 
that one wastes his precious free time reading the crackpots that you are 
taking a delight in discussing with.  This is now how Usenet works.

As it was, you have claimed that “Most charged particles have a charge of 
either +e or -e.”, a claim for which you have *still* not provided *any* 
evidence.  Instead, you have wound around your claim by simply ignoring 
certain particles on spurious grounds.

The rest of your posting is just a red herring and not worth further 
commenting on.

Put your money where your big mouth is.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#562697

On 3/15/2016 4:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/15/2016 12:24 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> So what it is that I'm saying is of lesser population are those with |q|
>>>> = 2e, 3d, 4e.... in these event displays.
>>>
>>> Fallacy: Moving the goalpost.  You have claimed in general, not regarding
>>> detectable observations, and only with ALICE.
>>
>> Sir,
>> Context is a wonderful thing. You should try it sometime.
>
> You should be more careful with your statements next time, and indeed
> *every* time.  For you cannot expect that everyone reads everything you are
> responding to in order to figure out what you may have meant; especially not
> that one wastes his precious free time reading the crackpots that you are
> taking a delight in discussing with.  This is now how Usenet works.

I'm sorry, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, but I'm afraid I've missed your 
recent book on Usenet etiquette, where you have no doubt laid out your 
expectations about how people will express themselves in posts. Woe to 
those who do not meet those expectations, lest they be deemed Usenet 
boors and uncouth savages.

I certainly do not expect that everyone reads everything I'm responding 
to. I would hope that people who intend to *respond* to something of 
mine they are reading would take the trouble to first find out what the 
discussion is actually about. At the very least, I would think it not to 
much to ask to have the prospective respondent look at the original post 
that started the thread, to help provide some glimmer of context. I 
would also imagine that if I'm responding to a someone you deem a 
crackpot, and that if you have no interest in reading any of the posts 
by the crackpot, then the whole conversation might be of less interest 
to you.

>
> As it was, you have claimed that “Most charged particles have a charge of
> either +e or -e.”,

In that ALICE event display. Feel free to dispute that with some 
evidence. Context, remember.

> a claim for which you have *still* not provided *any*
> evidence.  Instead, you have wound around your claim by simply ignoring
> certain particles on spurious grounds.
>
> The rest of your posting is just a red herring and not worth further
> commenting on.
>
> Put your money where your big mouth is.

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, I don't doubt that you are embarrassed 
finding yourself having inserted yourself awkwardly in a conversation 
before bothering to find out what it was about. The fact that you want 
to somehow make your embarrassment *my* fault and that I owe you 
anything more that what I've given you already in the form of 
clarification, is -- quite honestly -- sadly lame. Any more posturing on 
your part about it is just going to make you look unabashedly inept 
socially.


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

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

#562744

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 3/15/2016 4:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> As it was, you have claimed that “Most charged particles have a charge of
>> either +e or -e.”,
> 
> In that ALICE event display. Feel free to dispute that with some
> evidence. Context, remember.

This was your claim in context:

| >> What you can say is that the momentum is larger for that
| >> particle. But that could be a heavier particle, or a particle going
| >> faster, or both.
| >
| > Variously can be. For example, the momentum may be the same, and charge 
| > accordingly smaller, etc ...
| 
| Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
 
You were discussing particles *in general*.

There is no “ALICE event display” anywhere near your claim.

-- 
PointedEars

<http://www.zend.com/en/yellow-pages/ZEND024953> | Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#562811

On 3/15/2016 8:56 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 3/15/2016 4:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> As it was, you have claimed that “Most charged particles have a charge of
>>> either +e or -e.”,
>>
>> In that ALICE event display. Feel free to dispute that with some
>> evidence. Context, remember.
>
> This was your claim in context:
>
> | >> What you can say is that the momentum is larger for that
> | >> particle. But that could be a heavier particle, or a particle going
> | >> faster, or both.
> | >
> | > Variously can be. For example, the momentum may be the same, and charge
> | > accordingly smaller, etc ...
> |
> | Most charged particles have a charge of either +e or -e.
>
> You were discussing particles *in general*.
>
> There is no “ALICE event display” anywhere near your claim.
>

I have already posted to you explicitly that if you drew any inference 
that the discussion was more general than I intended, then herewith I 
was correcting that mistaken inference.

You are now not only trying to tell me what you interpreted my answer to 
mean but what I myself intended to mean in my answer, and you are doing 
this despite my explicit correction to you.

If you want to claim clairvoyance at this point, feel free to amuse the 
rest of the audience.

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

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

#561082

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 1 ou can look up drift 
> chambers, for example.
> 
> >
> >
> >> Those charged particles can
> >> be electrons or pions or protons or muons or a few other long-lasting
> >> charged particles. The identification of which of these it is, is
> >> usually not just by looking at those curved tracks but also the profile
> >> of the energy deposit in the calorimeter.
> >>
> > What exactly is it?
> 
> Don't have enough information from that picture to tell.
===========================
quote 
Don't have enough information from that picture to tell.
end of quote :

THAT IS THE ONLY HONEST PROPER  REMARK 
THE THIEF  P D   SAID UNTIL NOW !!
y.p
==================================




 However, there 
> are OTHER data recorded for that event that will be able to identify 
> what that particle is. It's just not shown in the picture.
> 
> >
> >
> > I see a large fragment of a larger spiral (4-6 times higher) than those small.
> > What can you say about the mass and charge in relation to the previous particles?
> >
> 
> You can't. What you can say is that the momentum is larger for that 
> particle. But that could be a heavier particle, or a particle going 
> faster, or both.
> 
> You'll notice some tracks that are only bent a little bit or are 
> visually almost straight. Those are particles with much higher momentum 
> than the ones you're looking at, and so they have such a large radius of 
> curvature that you're only seeing a tiny part of the arc of their curved 
> path. It turns out that these particles with higher momentum are in fact 
> the more interesting ones physically.
> 
> If you want to read a book about particle physics, particle detectors 
> and how to interpret what you're seeing there in the pictures, I can 
> give you a recommendation. Only thing is, they're not typically written 
> for laymen.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#561176

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/9/2016 3:55 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>> Is there also an electric field?
>
> Not in the volume you're looking at. There are other sub-detectors
> where there is an electric field internally confined. You can look up
> drift chambers, for example.

Those look like "micro-curlers" in the ALICE time projection chamber
(TPC), a nifty kind of drift chamber; if so, there is an electric field.
Micro-curlers are a characteristic "background" in TPC detectors, caused
primarily by low energy electrons and positrons from converted photons
drifting in the electric field that collects the ionization from the
traversal of charged particles.  Micro-curlers are reproduced very well
in simulations using standard physics, so there's no need to invoke
something special to explain them.

>> I see a large fragment of a larger spiral (4-6 times higher) than
>> those small.  What can you say about the mass and charge in relation
>> to the previous particles?
>
> You can't. What you can say is that the momentum is larger for that
> particle. But that could be a heavier particle, or a particle going
> faster, or both.

Picky point: the curvature depends on the product of the momentum and
charge, not just the momentum.  Ions with multiple charges (e.g., "alpha
particles") are possible, especially in heavy ion collisions.

Other than that, thanks for saving me from writing a longer explanation!

-dan

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

#561184

On 3/10/2016 11:35 AM, Daniel S. Riley wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 3/9/2016 3:55 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
>>> Is there also an electric field?
>>
>> Not in the volume you're looking at. There are other sub-detectors
>> where there is an electric field internally confined. You can look up
>> drift chambers, for example.
>
> Those look like "micro-curlers" in the ALICE time projection chamber
> (TPC), a nifty kind of drift chamber; if so, there is an electric field.
> Micro-curlers are a characteristic "background" in TPC detectors, caused
> primarily by low energy electrons and positrons from converted photons
> drifting in the electric field that collects the ionization from the
> traversal of charged particles.  Micro-curlers are reproduced very well
> in simulations using standard physics, so there's no need to invoke
> something special to explain them.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

>
>>> I see a large fragment of a larger spiral (4-6 times higher) than
>>> those small.  What can you say about the mass and charge in relation
>>> to the previous particles?
>>
>> You can't. What you can say is that the momentum is larger for that
>> particle. But that could be a heavier particle, or a particle going
>> faster, or both.
>
> Picky point: the curvature depends on the product of the momentum and
> charge, not just the momentum.  Ions with multiple charges (e.g., "alpha
> particles") are possible, especially in heavy ion collisions.

Picky point in return. Radius of curvature depends on the ratio of 
momentum and charge, doesn't it? More momentum -- larger radius; more 
charge -- tighter radius.

>
> Other than that, thanks for saving me from writing a longer explanation!
>
> -dan
>


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

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

#561663

W dniu czwartek, 10 marca 2016 18:35:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Daniel S. Riley napisał:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> > On 3/9/2016 3:55 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> >> Is there also an electric field?
> >
> > Not in the volume you're looking at. There are other sub-detectors
> > where there is an electric field internally confined. You can look up
> > drift chambers, for example.
> 
> Those look like "micro-curlers" in the ALICE time projection chamber
> (TPC), a nifty kind of drift chamber; if so, there is an electric field.
>
Top to down, or left-right?

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

#561080

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:55:58 PM UTC+2, Enes Richard wrote:
> W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 22:02:24 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > On 3/9/2016 12:50 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:36:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> > >> On 3/8/2016 12:15 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > >>> Intriguing objects / tracks that look like flat spirals / sine wave, because that should be the
> > >>> components of the electron / positron in the electromagnetic field.
> > >>>
> > >>> Maybe it is 1/4 or 1/6 of the mass of the electron, and from -1/4 to 1/4 electron charge ...
> > >>> It would be a complete victory 10 years old theory about the construction of each mass.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is there any other interpretation?
> > >>
> > >> You're joking, right? You do know that charged particles execute helical
> > >> trajectories in uniform magnetic fields, don't you?
> > >>
> 
> > Any charged particle can make those spirals. The radius of curvature of 
> > the spiral is directly related to the charge and momentum of the 
> > particle: R = P/qB, where P is the momentum, q is the charge, and B is 
> > the strength of the applied magnetic field. 
> >
> Is there also an electric field?
> 
> 
> > Those charged particles can 
> > be electrons or pions or protons or muons or a few other long-lasting 
> > charged particles. The identification of which of these it is, is 
> > usually not just by looking at those curved tracks but also the profile 
> > of the energy deposit in the calorimeter.
> >
> What exactly is it?
> 
> 
> I see a large fragment of a larger spiral (4-6 times higher) than those small.
> What can you say about the mass and charge in relation to the previous particles?

=======================
ball boggling !!

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 
MAGNETIC OR ELECTRIC FIELD 
IT IS MUCH   MORE BASIC !!

Y.Porat
=====================================
=================================

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

#561079

On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:02:24 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 3/9/2016 12:50 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> > W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 01:36:56 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> >> On 3/8/2016 12:15 PM, Enes Richard wrote:
> >>> Intriguing objects / tracks that look like flat spirals / sine wave, because that should be the
> >>> components of the electron / positron in the electromagnetic field.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe it is 1/4 or 1/6 of the mass of the electron, and from -1/4 to 1/4 electron charge ...
> >>> It would be a complete victory 10 years old theory about the construction of each mass.
> >>>
> >>> Is there any other interpretation?
> >>
> >> You're joking, right? You do know that charged particles execute helical
> >> trajectories in uniform magnetic fields, don't you?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > So what it is called the particle that made those tiny spirals?
> >
> 
> Any charged particle can make those spirals. The radius of curvature of 
> the spiral is directly related to the charge and momentum of the 
> particle: R = P/qB, where P is the momentum, q is the charge, and B is 
> the strength of the applied magnetic field. Those charged particles can 
> be electrons or pions or protons or muons or a few other long-lasting 
> charged particles. The identification of which of these it is, is 
> usually not just by looking at those curved tracks but also the profile 
> of the energy deposit in the calorimeter.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

==========================
imbecile thief !!
it is not spirals 
IT IS A ***HELIX **!!
GOT THE DIFFERENCE IDIOT PARROT THIEF
2
THAT HELIX IS ALLOWING ME  
TO START MAKE THE CONNECTION BETWEEN 
PHOTONS 
AND 'GRAVITONS' IE
MORE ACCURATE 
MY y CIRCLON AND Y CIRCLON MECHANISM !!!
TO UNIFY ALL FORCES
PLUS 
ADDING TO IT 
THE PHOTON WORLD !!

and if you don t get it
just start to ask questions !!!

copyright
Eng  
Yehiel Porat 
Mach 2016
==============================

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

#561664

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 10:15:47 AM UTC-8, Enes Richard wrote:
> Here is magnified picture:
> 
> http://1t2src2grpd01c037d42usfb.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/02/Alicetraces.jpg
> 
> Assume the beginning of the coordinate system in the lower left corner of the picture. The vertical axis Y in the range of 0.00 to 1.00. The horizontal axis X in the range of 0.00 to 1.00.
> 
> Here are the most distinct tracks objects:
> 
> Object 1.
> Y 0.52 to 0.54
> X from 0.32 to 0.39
> 
> Object 2.
> Y 0.52 to 0.54
> X from 0.57 to 0.64
> 
> Object 3.
> Y from 0.32 to 0.34
> X from 0.54 to 0.57
> 
> Intriguing objects / tracks that look like flat spirals / sine wave, because that should be the components of the electron / positron in the electromagnetic field.
> 
> Maybe it is 1/4 or 1/6 of the mass of the electron, and from -1/4 to 1/4 electron charge ...
> It would be a complete victory 10 years old theory about the construction of each mass.
> 
> Is there any other interpretation?
> 
> Source:
> hhttp://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/20/what-to-expect-next-from-the-lhc-worlds-largest-particle-accelerator/

Particles all the way down to the gravity particle.Gravity is the bottom line and it goes to infinity. Feynman did a lecture that we must try to get as close as possible to reality.My thinking too.Trebert

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

#561667

On 3/11/16 2:13 PM, reber g=emc^2 wrote:
> Particles all the way down to the gravity particle.Gravity is the bottom line and it goes to infinity.


   Meaningless word, reber.

   Shoot more pool, drink more BL and post less nonsense.

-- 

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]

#561670

<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> Cretin Glazier, the Swine
who showed off as "M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd",
now seeks fame by association with lectures that Glazier
never attended, but Glazier bragged:
Feynman did a lecture that we must try to get as close as 
possible to reality.My thinking too" which can seen 
as soon as
>
<herbertglazier0@gmail.com> "reber g=emc^2" :B::ert   
Glazier, the Hate monger, introduces himself with/as
>
:B:: "I am a proud Jew with a Superiority complex &
:B:: an IQ of 122", & "I do know how everything works,.."
:B:: "My Grandfathers had tails". -- Trebert
:B:: "Being Jewish I know this is so very true" -- Bert.
:B:: "I'm a non-bible(torra) Jew. I'm the only Jew that
:B:: got 2 form letters from two Popes". Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "I'll be sitting on Benj's, Saul Levi's & HVAC's face
:B:: to take a shit & say: "Open your mouth wide".
:B:: "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And laugh".
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
>
:B:: "I'm M&M's Clueless Fuck-faced turd".Bert.
:B:: I'm "Siegman Fraud", "Bert, the Bowel Movement".
:B:: "I gave G=EMC^2 (wrong & stolen) to the world"
:B:: "Israel will drop its first H-bomb 'David' ". TreBert
:B:: __"I'm glad when war breaks out"__ Bert
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
:B:: "Even the FBI has me as a trouble maker and
:B:: the FBI blocks my phone from calling them. "....
:B:: cuz "I was mixing sulfur, carbon & iron together
:B:: to make gun powder" ... & "while I was in custody
:B:: of Osceola Sheriff Bob Hansel, for thieving, his
:B:: deputies beat the shit out of me. So I bought a
:B:: 357 magnum for death threats by Sheriff Bob.
:B:: __** "Why am I not loved by all?" --- Bert **__.
 >
about which ....
Moderator General "HVAC" <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> aka
"Richard A." aka Harlow Campbell wrote:
>
"Bert, Seriously. You are the stupidest cocksucking
moron who ever came down the Mass Pike.
"Bert, you really are a pathetic excuse for a human
fucking being". "Bert is a racist. (And he's stupid too)"
"TreBert, you are one stupid cocksucker".
"Bert, does your stupidity know no bounds?"
"Bert, are the stupidest cocksucker on the planet."
"Spin THIS, Glazier, you fucking idiot." "Bert get
some spelling lessons, you feeble-minded fuck".
"Bert, your opinion doesn't count"
"Bert you are an idiot."
"Bert, you are a clueless cocksucker .... and "Bert
you are senile, dazed & confused. Fucked in the head.
"a trained cockroach is smarter than Bert"
"Bert, you should be arrested"
"Bert, I will call the police and tell them that your
van seems to be a center for drug activity in the
Wal-Mart parking lot".... .... about which....
 >
Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, your brain is entangles with a used garbage can.
Glazier, "Its a shame" that your science is far worse
than the man's on the street.
Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage.
reber, take your you know it all thinking to your grave .
reber, your horseshit gets old.Say hi to Allah for me.
reber, you don't believe in science.
Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup.
Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__.
Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!..
 >
Jim Pennino jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Glazier, you are a spamming piece of shit...
Your Cocaine usage explains a lot of your posts.
You are drunk again. Give up and kill yourself.
 >
Astrophysicist "Saul Levy" <saullevy1@cox.net> wrote:
GLAZIER YOU ARE A LAMEbrain PIECE OF SHIT!
Saul Levy
 >
Rocket Scientist Virdy "Mahipal" <mahipal7638@gmail.com> wrote:
Glazier, you are babbling desperately. Is it sympathy
or pity you're grasping for? Stop it, either way.
 >
benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote:
One only has to read Glazier's posts to see when Bert was lobotomized.
But Herb found poster "Double-A" who likes to be like Glazier,
but "Alkie-Alkie" is another kook who is as dumb as Bert is!
Now they party and frolic!...still waiting "to be loved by all"...
 >
hanson wrote:
So Glazier, given your Jewish Superiority complex and
your IQ of 122 and you knowing how how everything works,
... how come ended up shitting into a bucket in a 25 year
old van that you use as your residence on Wal-Mart's
Parking Lot? ..... .... What went wrong, Glazier?
 >
Now, Glazier consider "what will the say when Glazier dies?
Are they gonna say he was a kind man? He was a wise man?
He had plans? He has wisdom? .... BULLSHIT, MAN!"...
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TAixFYnDh4> [D]
BULLSHIT,... because Swine Glazier DOES have plans
which Glazier, the Swine, announced and posted at the
ripe age of eighty (80) when Glazier became a criminal
Graveyard Vandal who wrote:
 >
(1)
On 25Mar2008 Swine Glazier wrote in:
https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J
Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh
when it seeps down on your face. -- Bert.
 >
Glazier's geriatric decay worsened, along with Glazier's chronic
alcoholism and Glazier, the Olde Kacker, became a Coprophile
IOW Glazier became a filthy Face Shitter at his age of 86, which
Glazier proudly announced & posted...
 >
(2)
On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, Jew-Swine Glazier
said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>:
Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser.
For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser.
Benj, you can thank me in advance. - TreBert. ... after which...
 >
Glazier, the Criminal Graveyard Vandal & Face Shitter got even
worse over the next year and at Glazier's age of 87, Glazier
widened his piggish Face-shitting habit, as seen when Glazier
threatened...
 >
(3)
On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, as Swine Glazier wrote:
Harlow HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net
& Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your face
to take a shit & say: "Open wide". Trebert.
 >
(4)
The Criminal Swine Glazier refused to stop his practices & rejected
to be taken down, because Glazier at his age of 87+, Swine Glazier
labeled himself as "Siegman Fraud" which is synonym with "Bowel-
movement, actually saying that __ "Glazier is a piece of shit"__.
who, to boot, also announced that Glazier is a Transvestite who dons
female dresses and a Sarah Palin mask, saying that he has "nice
legs"...
 >
hanson wrote:
Now Glazier, since you are a curse and an embarrassment, day-in
and day-out, to every Jew everywhere, has it dawned on you
sorry, geriatric Transie-Swine, that as soon as you have been
"put away and under" Google will remove ALL YOUR posts from
the USENET and the only thing that will remain and show your
legacy, is because:
 >
Glazier the Swine fortunately posted:
.... "hanson made me famous"....
 >
hanson wrote
So, Glazier you swine you should be grateful to me & not wish
me ill like you did above, in your sick hate mongering, since
it is only because of hanson, that Web searches show for:
>
--- Swine Glazier G=EMC^2 Cretin ----            27'833 hits & rising
--- reber g=emc^2 Face-shitter & Vandal ----   27'953 hits & rising
>
cuz of hanson's caring and loving administering badly needed
<http://tinyurl.com/G-EMC2-Recall-Therapy> to the mental
cripple aka <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier>. ... Shalom

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

#561880

SmellBert says
Particles all the way down to the gravity particle
----------

No

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

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web