Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590116 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 93 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 12:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 13:52 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 16:47 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 05:58 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 17:57 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:52 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:04 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:09 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 02:05 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 07:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:03 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 08:07 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 10:53 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:03 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 04:52 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 14:48 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-08 15:43 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 02:56 -0400
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 09:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 11:37 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 10:01 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:11 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-21 11:33 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-22 01:55 -0400
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:01 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 09:15 -0700
Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 09:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:50 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:52 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:14 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:32 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 13:00 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:02 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 15:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 10:49 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 09:31 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 11:39 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:13 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:19 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:58 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:56 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 14:14 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-22 17:01 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:15 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 10:48 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:36 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:37 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0500
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-23 05:09 -0400
Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 07:43 +0200
Re: Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 23:12 -0700
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:26 -0500
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 18:43 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 12:16 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-25 22:27 +0200
Re: Electric field mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-25 18:02 -0700
Re: Electric field Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 07:14 +0200
Re: Electric field Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 15:51 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 09:36 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:59 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-23 17:37 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:44 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 12:57 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-10 16:38 -0700
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 04:30 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:03 +0200
Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 05:48 -0400
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:01 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 09:16 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 12:40 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 23:11 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 15:47 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:28 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:23 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:27 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:17 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:53 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:23 +0200
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:24 -0700
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:28 -0500
Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:38 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmu54v$1iss$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590350 |
On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > Fuck you. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <24a7953c-9ffe-4221-ac33-eeb8041c3dc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590392 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > Fuck you. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming > up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated homosexual and probably a pedophile too. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn03lf$1k0$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590396 |
On 7/22/2016 5:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> Fuck you. >>> >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >> >> Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? >> You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming >> up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated > homosexual and probably a pedophile too. LOL. Now is THAT any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? Desperate to cast personal libels? > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea9590f0-043a-40b3-904b-ae9200768bd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590454 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 5:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> Fuck you. > >>> > >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >> > >> Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > >> You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming > >> up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated > > homosexual and probably a pedophile too. > > LOL. Now is THAT any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > Desperate to cast personal libels? If Jesus was here, he would put his foot up your ass and make you like it. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 11:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn06kg$741$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590459 |
On 7/23/2016 11:31 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 5:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> Fuck you. >>>>> >>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>> >>>> Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? >>>> You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming >>>> up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated >>> homosexual and probably a pedophile too. >> >> LOL. Now is THAT any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? >> Desperate to cast personal libels? > > If Jesus was here, he would put his foot up your ass and make you like it. Oh, really? Is that what you're going to tell him when he looks you up? Dude. The more the tree gets dug up, the more gnarled the roots are. Maybe you should quit revealing so much about your emotional problems and go dark. You know, if you choose homelessness, nobody will call you out for being mentally ill. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f701f02-2880-4119-8892-fbb2064016f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590461 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 9:39:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/23/2016 11:31 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/22/2016 5:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> Fuck you. > >>>>> > >>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >>>> > >>>> Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > >>>> You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming > >>>> up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated > >>> homosexual and probably a pedophile too. > >> > >> LOL. Now is THAT any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > >> Desperate to cast personal libels? > > > > If Jesus was here, he would put his foot up your ass and make you like it. > > Oh, really? Is that what you're going to tell him when he looks you up? > > Dude. The more the tree gets dug up, the more gnarled the roots are. > Maybe you should quit revealing so much about your emotional problems > and go dark. You know, if you choose homelessness, nobody will call you > out for being mentally ill. Your momma was a fifty-cent whore and you're a pedophile. Is that evangelical Christian enough for you? ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 15:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn37h0$rv$10@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590514 |
On 7/23/2016 6:53 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 9:39:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/23/2016 11:31 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2016 5:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Fuck you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? >>>>>> You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming >>>>>> up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated >>>>> homosexual and probably a pedophile too. >>>> >>>> LOL. Now is THAT any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? >>>> Desperate to cast personal libels? >>> >>> If Jesus was here, he would put his foot up your ass and make you like it. >> >> Oh, really? Is that what you're going to tell him when he looks you up? >> >> Dude. The more the tree gets dug up, the more gnarled the roots are. >> Maybe you should quit revealing so much about your emotional problems >> and go dark. You know, if you choose homelessness, nobody will call you >> out for being mentally ill. > > Your momma was a fifty-cent whore and you're a pedophile. Is that evangelical Christian enough for you? It certainly is hypocritical and demented enough of you for me. Also a bit desperate and pathetic. But that's your history, right? > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 14:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d81596b-7598-4985-84fc-25e14fd433c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590601 |
On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:13:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/23/2016 6:53 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 9:39:48 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/23/2016 11:31 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/22/2016 5:30 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:02:12 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/22/2016 3:00 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> Fuck you. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now, is that any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > >>>>>> You don't think you're going to have some accountability issues coming > >>>>>> up soon, since you're in your late 60s already? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a personal obsession with you, I see. You are obviously a frustrated > >>>>> homosexual and probably a pedophile too. > >>>> > >>>> LOL. Now is THAT any way for an evangelical Christian to talk? > >>>> Desperate to cast personal libels? > >>> > >>> If Jesus was here, he would put his foot up your ass and make you like it. > >> > >> Oh, really? Is that what you're going to tell him when he looks you up? > >> > >> Dude. The more the tree gets dug up, the more gnarled the roots are. > >> Maybe you should quit revealing so much about your emotional problems > >> and go dark. You know, if you choose homelessness, nobody will call you > >> out for being mentally ill. > > > > Your momma was a fifty-cent whore and you're a pedophile. Is that evangelical Christian enough for you? > > It certainly is hypocritical and demented enough of you for me. > Also a bit desperate and pathetic. > But that's your history, right? You went and investigated my "history", as you call it, and decided that I was an evangelical Christian. I just wanted to prove you wrong. I investigated your history and decided that you were a homosexual with an obsession. LOL IOW, fuck you. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 07:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn52e5$e6o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590612 |
On 7/24/2016 4:19 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> It certainly is hypocritical and demented enough of you for me. >> > Also a bit desperate and pathetic. >> > But that's your history, right? > You went and investigated my "history", as you call it, and decided that I was > an evangelical Christian. I just wanted to prove you wrong. I investigated your > history and decided that you were a homosexual with an obsession. LOL Your history of promoting Biblical ideas and claiming to be on the path to a "Christian AI" are splattered all over the web, which is of course of your own doing and on purpose. So either you lied about all that, or you're lying now. And of course, you're fabricating the history about me. Another lie. > > IOW, fuck you. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff5f2c96-5e9e-4a6c-9ae1-ffcb1fe27572@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590670 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/24/2016 4:19 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >> It certainly is hypocritical and demented enough of you for me. > >> > Also a bit desperate and pathetic. > >> > But that's your history, right? > > You went and investigated my "history", as you call it, and decided that I was > > an evangelical Christian. I just wanted to prove you wrong. I investigated your > > history and decided that you were a homosexual with an obsession. LOL > > Your history of promoting Biblical ideas and claiming to be on the path > to a "Christian AI" are splattered all over the web, which is of course > of your own doing and on purpose. So either you lied about all that, or > you're lying now. > > And of course, you're fabricating the history about me. Another lie. > > > > > IOW, fuck you. > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Why don't you go pack yams up your ass and see if I care? ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nn5ucv$1rkg$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590728 |
On 7/25/2016 3:08 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/24/2016 4:19 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>> It certainly is hypocritical and demented enough of you for me. >>>>> Also a bit desperate and pathetic. >>>>> But that's your history, right? >>> You went and investigated my "history", as you call it, and decided that I was >>> an evangelical Christian. I just wanted to prove you wrong. I investigated your >>> history and decided that you were a homosexual with an obsession. LOL >> >> Your history of promoting Biblical ideas and claiming to be on the path >> to a "Christian AI" are splattered all over the web, which is of course >> of your own doing and on purpose. So either you lied about all that, or >> you're lying now. >> >> And of course, you're fabricating the history about me. Another lie. >> >>> >>> IOW, fuck you. >>> >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Why don't you go pack yams up your ass and see if I care? I KNOW you don't care whether you lie through your teeth or not. You do it on a daily basis, you can't possibly care about your integrity. All you want to do is spew noise, unsubstantiated claims, pseudoscientific propaganda, and other assorted shit. It's how you get your jollies. > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95c3f07f-52a5-464c-98a0-568e74c7c9a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590734 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 1:56:03 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/25/2016 3:08 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 5:58:49 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/24/2016 4:19 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> It certainly is hypocritical and demented enough of you for me. > >>>>> Also a bit desperate and pathetic. > >>>>> But that's your history, right? > >>> You went and investigated my "history", as you call it, and decided that I was > >>> an evangelical Christian. I just wanted to prove you wrong. I investigated your > >>> history and decided that you were a homosexual with an obsession. LOL > >> > >> Your history of promoting Biblical ideas and claiming to be on the path > >> to a "Christian AI" are splattered all over the web, which is of course > >> of your own doing and on purpose. So either you lied about all that, or > >> you're lying now. > >> > >> And of course, you're fabricating the history about me. Another lie. > >> > >>> > >>> IOW, fuck you. > >>> > >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Why don't you go pack yams up your ass and see if I care? > > I KNOW you don't care whether you lie through your teeth or not. You do > it on a daily basis, you can't possibly care about your integrity. > > All you want to do is spew noise, unsubstantiated claims, > pseudoscientific propaganda, and other assorted shit. > > It's how you get your jollies. > > > > > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Go pound sand up your ass, motherfucker. ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <579289a5$0$20037$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #590343 |
On 7/22/2016 3:32 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 1:44 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >> Pound sand up your ass and see if I give a shit. > > Oh you can do better than that. > > You lie beneath beneath beneath beneath beneath bottom. > > You smell like ranch dressing. > > I'd call you a cunt, but you lack the warmth and depth. > > Your ass must be jealous of the amount of shit that comes out of your > mouth. > > I'd say you know nothing, but that'd be denying the existence of > negative numbers. > > I'd explain things to you again, but frankly I don't have the time or > the crayons. > > The Richter scale was invented to measure your father's disappointment. > > So, how do things look on the other side of the Bell curve? > > Oooh, your face looks like it was on fire and somebody tried to put it > out with a wet brick. > > You are Comic Sans personified. > > If you were any more inbred, you'd be a sandwich. I'm really impressed with you, counselor! (Much more than I am with your amateur science) SLAM DUNK! Clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap Clap clap clap clap!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtkbc$q2r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590302 |
On 7/22/2016 11:01 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. First of all, if the charge is moving, the it isn't an electroSTATIC field, something that should be obvious. Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential Contrary to your reading of sound bites, Carlip does NOT say that the electrostatic field is observed to behave as though it were instantaneous and it is well known that it DOESN'T behave this way. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 10:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c242b54-5707-4129-8af8-2f0e0027da30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590310 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 11:01 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. > > First of all, if the charge is moving, the it isn't an electroSTATIC > field, something that should be obvious. > > Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential > Contrary to your reading of sound bites, Carlip does NOT say that the > electrostatic field is observed to behave as though it were > instantaneous and it is well known that it DOESN'T behave this way. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Pack your opinion up your ass. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtp3e$114f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590314 |
On 7/22/2016 12:48 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 11:01 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic >>> field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. >> >> First of all, if the charge is moving, the it isn't an electroSTATIC >> field, something that should be obvious. >> >> Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential >> Contrary to your reading of sound bites, Carlip does NOT say that the >> electrostatic field is observed to behave as though it were >> instantaneous and it is well known that it DOESN'T behave this way. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Pack your opinion up your ass. Darling Louis, these aren't opinions. Retarded potentials are established physics. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mapou001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8ab2ec6-b818-4072-86ed-6f736549e460@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #590324 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:36:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/22/2016 12:48 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/22/2016 11:01 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > >>> This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic > >>> field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. > >> > >> First of all, if the charge is moving, the it isn't an electroSTATIC > >> field, something that should be obvious. > >> > >> Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential > >> Contrary to your reading of sound bites, Carlip does NOT say that the > >> electrostatic field is observed to behave as though it were > >> instantaneous and it is well known that it DOESN'T behave this way. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Pack your opinion up your ass. > > Darling Louis, these aren't opinions. Retarded potentials are > established physics. > > > > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Eat shit. ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nmtq04$12hq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #590325 |
On 7/22/2016 1:37 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 11:36:37 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/22/2016 12:48 PM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/22/2016 11:01 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic >>>>> field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. >>>> >>>> First of all, if the charge is moving, the it isn't an electroSTATIC >>>> field, something that should be obvious. >>>> >>>> Secondly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_potential >>>> Contrary to your reading of sound bites, Carlip does NOT say that the >>>> electrostatic field is observed to behave as though it were >>>> instantaneous and it is well known that it DOESN'T behave this way. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Pack your opinion up your ass. >> >> Darling Louis, these aren't opinions. Retarded potentials are >> established physics. >> >>> >>> ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Eat shit. > > ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha... > I'll just mention at this point that you've spent more posts saying "Eat shit", "Fuck you" and "Your momma" than on posts with any physics content, misconceived though it is. You must be a pleasant guy to sit next to in Sunday School. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 05:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f2c6pbh07s0rmb4a185sbtsdl5etfg97f6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #590302 |
... >> Moving charges are constantly "broadcasting" because their "virtual >> photonic" flux is seen to change at different points in space around >> them as they move. With the wave theory, the static potential field >> radiated by the source charge acquires different vector values as the >> source charge moves due to its distance and position changes relative >> to any given point in space at which you may wish to measure it. > >Yes. Moving charge are constantly broadcasting with photons emanating from the charge and moving away from the charge at c. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the idea advanced by Steven Carlip and others that charges are continually broadcasting information about their positions and velocity out into space. This is ridiculous, stupid and absurd. No particle has any access to its position relative to anything else let alone its velocity. Carlip falsely attributes the observed instantaneous behavior of the electrostatic field to this broadcasting. I think the whole "broadcasting" thing is semantics. The field is what is "broadcast" (I prefer radiated) into the distance and other charges interact with this field and that provides the force on them. The changing of this field reflects the changes in position of the source charge. >> >> The change in electrostatic force (direction and magnitude) your >> distant test charge " feels" is delayed by the light travel time >> between the moving source charge and your test charge.. > >This is not observed, something that Carlip himself admits. The electrostatic field is observed to behave as if it were instantaneous. Can you cite me an experiment that bears this out because what you claim is contrary to even classical electrodynamics. I admit I cannot think of an experiment specifically designed to test the propagation speed of an electrostatic field, but since you have agreed that EM waves propagate at v = c and they are just the result of changes in position of their electrostatic sources, it seems logical to me that electrostatic fields also propagate at v = c. Btw, I don't know what you are referring to when you cite Carlip. ... --------------------------------------------------- Michael J. Strickland Reston, VA ---------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 07:43 +0200 |
| Subject | Electric field (was: Re: Re: Gravity Force Has No Speed) |
| Message-ID | <7951099.CDJkKcVGEf@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #590277 |
Michael J. Strickland wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT), mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
>>On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 11:56:13 PM UTC-7, Michael Strickland
>>wrote:
>>> Not many, if any, phenomenon propagate instantaneously since that
>>> usually requires infinite power.
>>
>> There is no propagation of the [electric field]. It is a nonlocal
>> phenomenon caused by nature correcting violations to some conservation
>> principle. The electrostatic field must remain symmetrical around its
>> source in order to obey Coulomb's inverse square law. The electrostatic
>> field around a charged particle are caused by photons emanating from it.
>> In order for the field to remain symmetrical, the photons must move in
>> unison with the particle regardless of how far apart they are. Again,
>> it's a nonlocal phenomenon.
>
> That field around the stationary charge "caused by photons" propagates
> at v = c (as do photons).
Nonsense. By *definition*, an electro*static*, or put more simply,
electric, field does _not_ propagate; it is just there, it is *static*.
What *does* propagate are *changes* in that field, and *they* propagate at
the same speed that light propagates in the medium that the electric field
is permeating (short: at the speed of light), which for all media other
than vacuum is *slower* than c, and *only for vacuum* is c.
See also:
<http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/1753/17333>
<https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/propagation-of-static-electric-field.708342/>
[The electromagnetic field also does _not_ propagate as such. An
electromagnetic _wave_ does, which is a dynamic excitation of that field, or
IOW “a self-propagating transverse oscillating wave of electric and magnetic
fields”, and photons are *elementary* excitations of *that* field. So
photons can be said to move at the same speed as an electromagnetic wave,
the _speed of light_ in the medium they are moving.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation>]
> Moving charges are constantly "broadcasting" because their "virtual
> photonic" flux is seen to change at different points in space around
> them as they move. With the wave theory, the static potential field
> radiated by the source charge acquires different vector values as the
> source charge moves due to its distance and position changes relative
> to any given point in space at which you may wish to measure it.
>
> E = (kq_s * q_t) / r^2 and F = Eq
>
> where:
> F = Force
> E = electric field (vector)
> k = Coulomb's constant
> q_s = source charge
> q_t = test charge
> r = distance vector
Nonsense. [If “r” is a “distance *vector*”, what is “r^2” so that E can be
a *vector* and you can *still* divide by “r^2”? What is “q” when you have
only defined q_s and q_t? And one usually does not use the equals sign to
define a quantity with words.]
Coulomb’s Law is, using your symbols (emphasis mine):
_F_ = k |q_s q_t| ∕ r^2
where _F_ is a *scalar*, the magnitude of the force between the particles
with electric charges q_s and q_t, respectively (henceforth: q_s and q_t),
and r is a *scalar*, the distance between them, or
_F⃗_s_ = k q_s q_t ^r_{ts}∕|r⃗_{st}|²
where _F⃗_s_ is a vector (notice the arrow), the force applied on q_s by
q_t, ^r_{ts} is a unit vector pointing from q_t to q_s, and r⃗_{st} is a
vector pointing from q_s to q_t. (For F⃗_t, one can do the calculation by
exchanging q_s and q_t and inverting vectors, or by applying Newton’s third
law: F⃗_t = −F⃗_s.)
Additionally, the magnitude of the electric field (again, a *scalar*)
created by a *single* *source* point charge q can be obtained from Coulomb’s
law as
|E⃗| = q∕(4 π ε₀ |r⃗|²) = k q∕|r⃗|²
where r⃗ is the vector (notice the arrow) pointing from the point charge to
the location in the field where one measures the magnitude of the field (or
vice versa), because k := 1∕(4 π ε₀). Or, with E := |E⃗| and r := |r⃗|,
E = q∕(4 π ε₀ r²) = k q∕ r²
(notice that “E” and “r” are *scalars* now – the arrows are gone –, and r is
the distance from the source point charge q).
Only (your) F = E q is correct if *both* F and E are either vectors or
magnitude scalars as
|E⃗| q = |q|²∕(4 π ε₀ r²) = k |q|²∕r² = |F⃗|
and
E⃗ q = |q|² ^r⃗∕(4 π ε₀ |r⃗|²) = k |q|² ^r⃗∕|r⃗|² = F⃗. ∎
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html#c1>
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web