Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 218 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:28 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 18:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 01:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:52 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 12:27 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 08:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 09:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 18:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:54 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 06:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 10:05 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:29 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:50 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:56 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 18:05 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:14 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:31 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 20:44 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 12:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:30 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 16:15 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:32 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 19:33 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 18:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 18:32 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 21:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 06:26 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:40 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 15:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 17:34 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:27 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 12:40 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:03 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:38 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:50 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:06 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 11:47 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:19 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:16 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:04 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:52 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:38 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:33 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:11 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 11:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:39 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:28 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:18 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:30 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 19:05 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 07:02 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:20 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 05:21 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:27 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:35 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:50 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 07:16 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 20:29 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 14:00 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:54 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 19:37 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:05 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:08 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-09-03 12:47 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-09-05 06:51 -0500
Re: I'm the best c coder here. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:07 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser is THE UNDISPUTED KING of low SignalToNoise ratios. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 05:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 11:16 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 12:41 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:21 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:12 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 14:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-05 17:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:29 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 06:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 15:39 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 17:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:55 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 07:09 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:51 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 21:35 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 02:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:26 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 19:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:42 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 00:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view "Dingus Dirtbag McGee" <scopeflenser@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 10:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 10:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 06:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:45 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 07:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Sadovnik Socratus <44socrat@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 02:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 06:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 22:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59A3B026.7BD3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #647524 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > On 8/27/17 10:23 AM, john wrote: > > > > Odd > > > > " > > > >>> If you remove all the field quanta that make up the sun, then of course the > > > >>> field quanta that radiate from them will > > > > > > > > I wonder how you determine what is nonsense and what is not. Agreement with > > > > experiment or gut feel? > > > > " > > > > > > > > Oh boy. > > > > "Field quanta". > > > > > > Yup. And what gives you a queasy feeling about that? > > > > In 1905, Albert Einstein used the idea of light quanta to explain the photoelectric effect. > > > > "Field quanta" is a modern word for "light quanta". It's just 1905 rehash..they both mean the same thing. > > > > it's poppycock. There is nothing about modern physics here except a few changes in words... > > > > it's fake modern science if it is nothing new... > > > > it's a con. > > > > How is ideas invented in 1905 modern science???? > > In other words... "Field quanta" is Einstein's 1905 "light quanta" which > are "photons". > > How is that modern science? > > It simply is not. > > But you do got a bunch of kids in skool who fall for anything, and have > to... > > It's like changing 'global warming' to 'climate change'.. > > it just garbage. What's in a name? that which we call a rose. By any other name is old science...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6cbe91d7-5830-4b60-a10f-78ddf4d6faad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647525 |
Odd "> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) " Purest of purest Fudge bullshit. Bosons, fermions, whatever, there are protons and there are electrons. The reason protons can interact physically is because they are drawn from a coarser dimension than electrons. A different gauge of Matter. THE ONE BELOW ATOMS THAT GIVES OFF FIELDS. Most of your terms are going to mean the same thing as "Unicorn", anyway, Malicious Michael. I might as well cherry pick the useful ones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 09:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo17ot$1t0d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647544 |
On 8/28/17 8:32 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the >> fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields >> can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.) " > Purest of purest Fudge bullshit. > > Bosons, fermions, whatever, there are protons and there are electrons. And electrons are propagating disturbances in a global electron field. In other words, there is a solid, quantifiable, verifiable explanation for what an electron IS. Protons are interacting collections of disturbances in global quark and gluon fields. In other words, there is a solid, quantifiable explanation for what protons ARE. > The reason protons can interact physically is because they are drawn from a coarser dimension than electrons. Unquantifiable babbling, John. Turn that speculation into something you can CALCULATE with, and you'll have a physically worthwhile idea. As it is, it's just speculative babbling, where there is already a better, TESTED, quantifiable theory at play. > A different gauge of Matter. > THE ONE BELOW ATOMS THAT GIVES OFF FIELDS. Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where there was no field before. It's already there and has already been there BY DEFINITION. If you charge up a ping pong ball so that it seems to raise the hair on your arms, you haven't CREATED a new static electric field. The field was already there and charging up the ping pong ball only changed the value of the already existing field in the vicinity of the ball. If you would bother to learn what the terms mean before you use them, you won't be generating word salad every time you open your mouth. The problem you have is that your pot-addled brain does not have the capacity or the desire to learn what these words mean, and so you just rely on what you THINK they might mean. Then when that doesn't end up making sense, you blame physics for your own mistake. > > Most of your terms are going to mean the same thing as "Unicorn", anyway, Malicious Michael. I might as well cherry pick the useful ones. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 07:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b572c956-e4a9-4fde-9379-02bc540b43a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647550 |
Odd " Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where there was no field before. It's already there and has already been there " Well SHIT. What are we building microwave towers for? Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1bg8$448$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647556 |
On 8/28/2017 9:51 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for > all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where > there was no field before. It's already there and has already been there " > > Well SHIT. > What are we building microwave towers for? > Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! > ....... beginning to sound like the "aether" field "Return of the Walking Dead Aether Engineers"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 08:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <78ddf019-698c-45f7-9300-2c857f83da45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647557 |
Odd " And electrons are propagating disturbances in a global electron field. In other words, there is a solid, quantifiable, verifiable explanation for what an electron IS. Protons are interacting collections of disturbances in global quark and gluon fields. In other words, there is a solid, quantifiable explanation for what protons ARE. " Your "global electron field" corresponds to my sub aether, and your "global quark and gluon field" corresponds to my aether (first level/dimension below our matter). Hey! Now we're getting somewhere, Odd! Way to be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 10:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1cnl$5vv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647560 |
On 8/28/17 10:19 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > > And electrons are propagating disturbances in a global electron field. > In other words, there is a solid, quantifiable, verifiable explanation > for what an electron IS. > > Protons are interacting collections of disturbances in global quark and > gluon fields. In other words, there is a solid, quantifiable explanation > for what protons ARE. > " > Your "global electron field" corresponds to my sub aether, and your "global quark and gluon field" corresponds to my aether (first level/dimension below our matter). Well, first of all, there is nothing about layering in anything that I've said. Secondly, if you want to take existing theories and just relabel everything because you like your words better because they're cooler, then what exactly have you accomplished? Why not just learn what the words in physics actually MEAN, rather than trying to come up with your own grand scheme and then do a word-matching exercise? > > Hey! Now we're getting somewhere, Odd! Way to be. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a4806d$0$13141$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647557 |
On 8/28/2017 11:05 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/28/2017 9:51 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> " >> Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for >> all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where >> there was no field before. It's already there and has already been >> there " >> >> Well SHIT. >> What are we building microwave towers for? >> Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! >> > > ....... beginning to sound like the "aether" field > > > > > "Return of the Walking Dead Aether Engineers" Odd, if your fields extend everywhere and for all time (and they do because that is the mathematical definition of them) Then clearly they are fantasy and not reality. So why do you call fantasy reality, Odd. That is unscientific and nuts. That what ARchiepoo and Banjo do. Note that by this argument that if "aether" is real then it cannot extend "everywhere" and for all time. (Assuming that time actually exists.If it does not the question is irrelevant) On the other hand it's clear that were time a loop then something could exist "for all time" and the total time would still be finite and hence could exist. You agree Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 10:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1ci9$5vv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647556 |
On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for > all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where > there was no field before. It's already there and has already been there " > > Well SHIT. > What are we building microwave towers for? That's obvious. To CHANGE THE VALUES of the field that is already there. Because when you tweak the VALUE of a field where the microwave tower is, then the symmetry that controls that field is expressible in a physical law, and then solving that physical law mathematically tells you that the tweaked VALUE of the field here will produce a short time later a tweaked VALUE of the field a little bit away, and this process will continue in a CALCULABLE way, and if you follow those calculations in laborious detail, you discover that a receiver way the hell over there will be able to detect a change in the VALUE of the field at that point. And anything that you ever read that said that fields are RADIATED out from a microwave tower was comic book pablum that you should avoid looking at in the future. > Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 10:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1csp$5vv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647556 |
On 8/28/17 9:51 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > Fields aren't "given off". A field by definition extends everywhere for > all time. A field is not something that radiates out into a place where > there was no field before. It's already there and has already been there " > > Well SHIT. > What are we building microwave towers for? > Tell the boys we don't have to- fields already there!! > I think if you'll look more carefully, John, you'll probably see that the description of microwave towers may talk about radiation of SIGNALS, not of fields. And quite possibly, the idea of those signals being fields and so fields are what have been radiated, is an idea that you made up completely in your own head. In the absence of information, people tend to make shit up. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 08:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e59db638-b72b-4f4d-beb6-16a933569772@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647564 |
Odd " Well, first of all, there is nothing about layering in anything that I've said. " So- what is the difference between your 'quark-gluon soup' and your 'electron soup'? Edify us.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 11:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1f5b$am7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647566 |
On 8/28/17 10:50 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > Well, first of all, there is nothing about layering in anything that > I've said. " > So- what is the difference between your 'quark-gluon soup' and your 'electron soup'? > Edify us. > Not one above the other. The electron field interacts with the weak boson field and the Higgs field and the electromagnetic boson field. The quark field interacts with all of those plus the gluon field. The gluon field interacts with only the quark fields and nothing else. Physicists characterize fields according to how they interact, in much the same way zoologists organize different animals into species by how they breed for procreation. (If two animals can procreate into a fertile offspring, they are said to be of the same species and the species is given a name.) And as for the "us" that is being edified, just speak for yourself, John. There is no "us" that is wholly incapable of reading. There's only a few semiliterate lazy-bums like you that are uninterested in reading to learn. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 09:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07108d73-06d0-4764-9ab2-83160f8002f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647568 |
Odd " few semiliterate lazy-bums like you that are uninterested in reading " Have I told you to f**k off, lately? Consider yourself told. So, would you say your 'quark-gluon' soup is everywhere, but denser than the 'electron' soup which is also everywhere?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1h44$e20$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647569 |
On 8/28/17 11:17 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " few semiliterate lazy-bums like you that are uninterested in reading" > Have I told you to f**k off, lately? > Consider yourself told. John, to me, and this is just my opinion, spending a lot of time discussing a subject you know nothing about simply because you've not bothered reading anything about the subject is a monstrous waste of time. It's yours to waste of course. And it's my prerogative to tell you it's foolish, lazy, and curable. > > So, would you say your 'quark-gluon' soup is everywhere, but denser than the 'electron' soup which is also everywhere? > First of all, John, please use the words of physics so that you do not start to get confused. There is an electron field (not an electron soup), there is a quark field, there is a gluon field (not a quark-gluon soup). OK? Changing things doesn't help the conversation. Fields don't have densities. They have places where the ripples in the fields may be denser than other places. For example, the quark field ripples are denser where our eyes perceive a chunk of iron than the quark field ripples at the top of the atmosphere. The field itself doesn't have a density. So where you see a lot of electrons, what that means is that the ripples in the electron field are denser there. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 09:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ee64e37-6bb5-4b88-8c27-f97ac804b9b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647569 |
Odd Let's work with your 'quark-gluon soup. Okay. A 'Black Hole' is where your quark-gluon soup is spinning so fast that no quark structures can remain in it. A proton is where your electron soup is spinning so fast that no electron structures can remain in it. Translation: a Black Hole is 1/2 spin in the quark soup. A proton is 1/2 spin in the electron soup. A photon is 1/1 spin plus translation at c in the quark soup. Gravitational/Inertial phenomena would radiate at 1/1 in the electron soup. Am I getting your terms right eidetic no-logic man?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 12:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1ib7$g29$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647577 |
On 8/28/17 11:56 AM, john wrote: > Odd > Let's work with your 'quark-gluon soup. I'll work with you once you stop mixing up terms. > Okay. > A 'Black Hole' is where your quark-gluon soup is spinning so fast that no quark structures can remain in it. No, that's not what a black hole is. A black hole is evidenced by the event horizon. Period. There is nothing in that about "quark structures". > A proton is where your electron soup is spinning so fast that no electron structures can remain in it. Nope, that has NOTHING to do with what I just told you in the description of fields. Absolutely nothing. If I describe a cow to you as a mammalian even-toed ungulate, and you came back with a statement like "OK, let's work with your ungulates. A gila monster is an ungulate whose internal mammalia have been inverted" then it would be clear you're not paying any attention at all. > > Translation: a Black Hole is 1/2 spin in the quark soup. > A proton is 1/2 spin in the electron soup. > A photon is 1/1 spin plus translation at c in the quark soup. Gravitational/Inertial phenomena would radiate at 1/1 in the electron soup. > > Am I getting your terms right eidetic no-logic man? > Nope. Care to read it again? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 18:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo1m1l$s5e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647577 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >Let's work with your 'quark-gluon soup. >Okay. >A 'Black Hole' is where your quark-gluon soup is spinning so fast that no quark structures can remain in it. >A proton is where your electron soup is spinning so fast that no electron structures can remain in it. >Translation: a Black Hole is 1/2 spin in the quark soup. >A proton is 1/2 spin in the electron soup. >A photon is 1/1 spin plus translation at c in the quark soup. Gravitational/Inertial phenomena would radiate at 1/1 in the electron soup. Blithering word salad garbage. Why not listen to Odd and read one of the books he suggests? >Am I getting your terms right eidetic no-logic man? Not even close.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cfe99de1-5a5b-4983-9f62-4b158db541c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647588 |
MM "Blithering word salad garbage. Why not listen to Odd and read one of the books he suggests? " 'Quark-gluon soup' sounds like it's a little Fudge-y. So does electron 'soup'. Is that as far as Standard Model takes its explanation of protons and electrons? No telltale differences between them? Spin? Size (gauge)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 13:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1nie$o3j$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647589 |
On 8/28/17 1:14 PM, john wrote: > MM > "Blithering word salad garbage. Why not listen to Odd and read one of > the books he suggests? > " > 'Quark-gluon soup' sounds like it's a little Fudge-y. > So does electron 'soup'. Those are YOUR terms, not mine. I asked you not to use them. And here you are saying they sound fudgey. Yes, they do. They were invented by you. > Is that as far as Standard Model takes its explanation of protons and electrons? > No telltale differences between them? Spin? Size (gauge)? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo1vc0$30l$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647589 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"Blithering word salad garbage. Why not listen to Odd and read one of >the books he suggests? >" >'Quark-gluon soup' sounds like it's a little Fudge-y. >So does electron 'soup'. That's right. Those are terms you came up with, and Odd said not to use them. >Is that as far as Standard Model takes its explanation of protons and electrons? >No telltale differences between them? Spin? Size (gauge)? Substantially different masses. Opposite charges. Protons are made of 3 quarks, electrons appear to be fundamental.(*) Protons have a measurable size and structure, electrons do not.(*) Protons feel the strong force and bind with other nucleons, electrons do not. Protons have a nonzero baryon number (which is conserved), electrons do not. Electrons have a nonzero lepton number (which is conserved), protons do not. (*) time for a rant from John!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web