Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #562012 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-14 14:11 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:27 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2016-03-19 13:44 -0400
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:20 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:55 -0500
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-14 08:09 -0700
Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 13:27 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:07 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:19 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:44 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 21:42 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 06:25 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:55 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:59 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:49 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:13 -0500
camsZor noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 10:30 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:59 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:40 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 18:49 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:43 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:18 +0000
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:08 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:34 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 11:51 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 18:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 17:46 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:09 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:21 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 14:26 -0700
numbers as quotients etc. (fractions as exponents e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 06:12 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 08:49 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 07:35 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:43 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 08:20 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:28 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:19 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:25 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 07:05 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 09:22 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:53 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:20 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 03:02 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 14:54 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 16:58 -0500
forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 11:26 -0700
forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 20:54 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 10:57 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 21:21 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-04 01:13 -0400
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 06:26 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:12 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-05 13:26 -0400
linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 14:17 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:15 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:47 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:32 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:41 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:42 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:27 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:12 -0700
Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 11:42 -0700
Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-04-10 21:57 +0000
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:54 -0500
Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:59 -0700
Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:23 -0500
Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-06 00:13 -0400
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:29 -0500
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:22 -0500
gi'me a u. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:00 -0700
Re: gi'me a u. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 21:39 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:25 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 13:05 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 06:00 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:28 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:28 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:26 -0400
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:11 -0500
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 15:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <neeeh6$bko$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569276 |
On 4/9/2016 3:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > (snipped) > > Does any biographer go into details of his illness? > > AP > One of his former students, Ralph Leighton, wrote a book called Tuva or Bust, which is about his last years. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 22:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ec24695a-6ac3-49e8-9e0b-3846c255dbf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569532 |
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 3:54:05 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/9/2016 3:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > (snipped) > > > > Does any biographer go into details of his illness? > > > > AP > > > > One of his former students, Ralph Leighton, wrote a book called Tuva or > Bust, which is about his last years. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Thanks for that information, and see if the library has the book. I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <neg4ut$101n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569632 |
On 4/11/2016 12:59 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 3:54:05 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/9/2016 3:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> (snipped) >>> >>> Does any biographer go into details of his illness? >>> >>> AP >>> >> >> One of his former students, Ralph Leighton, wrote a book called Tuva or >> Bust, which is about his last years. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Thanks for that information, and see if the library has the book. > > I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed > account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. You are right, you're not going to find detailed accounts of his medical treatment, because privacy laws prohibit it unless the patient agrees to disclose all those details, and Feynman did not. You would do better to find people who suffer from liposarcoma who have authorized disclosure who are not famous physicists, as the disease does not care what the person did for a living. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 13:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <a4c14091-9c42-428e-9223-da6cf967f1da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569674 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:22:57 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/11/2016 12:59 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) > > I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed > > account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. > > You are right, you're not going to find detailed accounts of his medical > treatment, because privacy laws prohibit it unless the patient agrees to > disclose all those details, and Feynman did not. You would do better to > find people who suffer from liposarcoma who have authorized disclosure > who are not famous physicists, as the disease does not care what the > person did for a living. > Well a disease can be specific to a occupation, such as mercury with the hat profession in past history of Mad-Hatter disease. If my compression theory is correct that some cancers are induced by pressure to dividing cells causing a cell to go cancerous, then the entire Western culture of "elastics" to hold up pants or socks could cause these liposomas and liposarcomas. And even more worrying is the breast cancer with the pressure of elastics on breasts. I have heard of many cases of breast cancer where the tumour is at a distance from the center of the breasts and more located where the elastic used to be. I have heard of cultures that use no elastic and have far fewer cases of breast cancer. Now I am interested in looking up whether wrist watches pressure caused some cancers in the wrist region. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snowshoe <no@spam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 00:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ne228h$juj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568118 |
On 4/5/2016 5:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, Snowshoe wrote: >> On 4/4/2016 5:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>> Can you please provide a rough estimate of a linear momentum energy of these decay particles: >>> alpha >>> beta >>> gamma ray >>> neutrino in neutron decay >> >> It's different for each nucleus. Many times the energies are millions of >> electron volts. There is, however, at least one isotope which emits a >> "gamma ray" of just a few electron volts, it's actually in the >> ultraviolet region of the spectrum. > > Thanks for this information. Of course, I do not believe or accept quark theory, > so that part is irrelevant to me. > > I am hoping someone in sci.physics has enough physics knowledge to be able to give > a description of the amount of energy involved in a typical alpha emission, a > typical beta emmission, a typical gamma ray emission and a typical antineutrino > emission with the fact that alpha and beta have rest masses when the last two have none. > In other words, Weak Nuclear force is a mirror reflection of the fact that the Coulomb > force is a variable force law ranging from solid body rotation all the way down to 1/R^2. > > Are you able to give me a rough number estimate of the energies of these four? As I mentioned, its different for each nuclide. Usually millions of electron volts but there is a wide range. Google should find a good table of nuclides that lists decay energy and decay mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ndu186$st$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567597 |
On 4/2/2016 10:54 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Neutron decay is the fourth. > > AP > Neutron decay is beta decay. Eactly the same as a nuclear beta decay. In a nuclear beta decay, one of the neutrons in the nucleus is converting to a proton, emitting an electron and an antineutrino. Exactly like free neutron decay. Might want to refresh yourself on some basics. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ndu0s9$st$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567525 |
On 4/2/2016 1:26 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright in Weak Nuclear force we have Alpha decay of a helium nucleus, > and beta decay of a electron and we have photon radiation decay for three > different phenomenon of Weak Nuclear and thus three different force laws > for each decay mode. Do we have a 4th decay mode? Not sure and will look. Alpha and gamma decays have nothing to do with the weak nuclear interaction. The only kind of decay that has to do with the weak nuclear interaction is beta decay. Alpha decay is through the strong nuclear interaction, and gamma decay is through the electromagnetic interaction. I think you have some catching up to do on the basics. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 08:00 -0700 |
| Subject | gi'me a u. |
| Message-ID | <7e5d0092-0040-4916-9147-4541bbbd9f71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566948 |
it is probably akin to plasma physics, viz u.c.s.d and upsalla.u > > Coulomb the has variable strengths from solid- body to 1/r to 1/r^2, > > can we find this variability in Weak Nuclear force? > > > > AP > > > > You have some catching up to do. It's been proposed since 1967 that the > weak and electromagnetic interactions are not separate but are in fact > one unified interaction called the electroweak. The key experimental > validation of that theory was in 1973, and the proponents of electroweak > theory were awarded Nobel prizes for the work in 1979.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 21:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: gi'me a u. |
| Message-ID | <1f15d248-8f5c-4485-9b25-714a01f3df07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568282 |
since, of course, almost all of Universe is plasma > it is probably akin to plasma physics, > viz u.c.s.d and upsalla.u > > > > Coulomb the has variable strengths from solid- body to 1/r to 1/r^2, > > > can we find this variability in Weak Nuclear force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 14:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <65adnVQzZsOuGGTLnZ2dnUU7-TWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #566165 |
On 3/28/16 11:03 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Solid body rotation occurs in most spiral galaxies of the stars closest to center of Galaxy. > > AP > Wrong again, AP. > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter23/23f19.html > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter23/23f20.html -- 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]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 13:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ccf4e7b1-8678-4b00-889f-39264f3e2ac5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564931 |
So the Unification Force of physics involves all four of these rotations. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 06:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <577daaa1-755f-460d-b409-1c8cb68fb7d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565792 |
So, why not a force of physics the unification force as Coulomb be a variable force with not just 1/r^2 but with 1/r and two others listed. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 12:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <de5fab45-b332-4247-b931-d44a1b947b9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #565901 |
So physics does not have four forces but just one, which we can call the EM force of Maxwell theory and it has a wide spectrum of values ranging from solid-body-rotation V proportional to radius to that of the smallest 1/r^2. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 15:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <FaSdnbKrLeKflXLLnZ2dnUU7-Rdj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #563823 |
On 3/20/16 1:38 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > You neglect Maxwell theory which has a SR math but not a GR math. AP, you couldn't articulate a scientific argument if you life depended on it. -- 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]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ncp0fr$1mgu$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #563823 |
On 3/20/2016 1:38 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Sorry your wrong. You neglect Maxwell theory which has a SR math but not a GR math. I don't believe that's accurate. The electrodynamics in curved spacetime (that is, electrodynamics with GR math) has been developed. > The greatest disaster of modern physics is push Maxwell EM aside and fill it with silly GR. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <a4c07f65-a11f-49f9-92ac-0908458003dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #564121 |
That is a attachment of a wrongful math to Maxwell EM. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ncp7r7$73u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #564169 |
On 3/21/2016 11:15 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > That is a attachment of a wrongful math to Maxwell EM. Seems to work in comparison with experiment. Remember what we said earlier is the measure of a good theory. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-19 08:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <noWdnZW0tsW5ynDLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #563477 |
On 3/18/16 2:40 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > GR is not quantum mechanics Bravo! Nor does general relativity make predictions related to QED. Reference: General relativity: 100 years of the most beautiful theory ever created > http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/general-relativity-100-years-of-the-most-beautiful-theory-ever-created/ The cases of Hilbert and Noether are interesting enough to dwell on. In the Spring of 1915, Hilbert invited Einstein to give some lectures at the university at Göttingen, which had become the center of mathematics in Germany and perhaps in the whole Western world. Einstein and Grossmann had published papers expounding a preliminary version of his new theory of gravity, and as Einstein was continuing to work on it Hilbert wanted to know more. He was already familiar with the exotic (to Einstein) mathematics involved (having developed further some of it himself), so as soon as he was able to achieve some understanding of the physics, Hilbert was off and running. At first, Einstein was delighted in finding a new intellectual companion in Hilbert, someone who was able to instantly grasp the core of the problem and tackle it head-on. As he wrote in a letter near the end of November 1915, "The theory is beautiful beyond comparison. However, only one colleague has really understood it", referring to Hilbert. Einstein considered this famed mathematician a genuine "comrade of conviction" who shared his attitude about science as transcending national and ethnic boundaries. That stance might seem obvious today, but it could be considered unpatriotic in the Germany of WWI. But this delight soon turned to resentment as a kind of race ensued, as least in Einstein's imagination, to write down the correct set of equations to describe the gravitational field. Both men understood that this was something big, and the stakes were high. Einstein carried on an intense correspondence with Hilbert and other scientists during the struggle. He became horrified that, after his years of striving, someone else might be able to hijack his work and claim credit for the complete and final theory of gravity. As he said in the same letter, "In my personal experience I have hardly come to know the wretchedness of mankind better than as a result of this theory and everything connected to it." In a note a few days after that to Michele Besso, Einstein continued. "My colleagues are acting hideously in this affair." For his part, Hilbert had already made the remark that would later become somewhat infamous: "physics is much too hard for physicists." While author David Rowe rightfully points out we "know almost nothing about what Einstein and Hilbert talked about during the physicist's week in Gottingen," Hilbert did send off a manuscript with the correct, final field equations that comprised the fundamental content of the theory of general relativity. And he did so almost simultaneously with Einstein's public presentation of these equations. The debate over priority is still being waged by historians, but Einstein and Hilbert had forgotten their differences and moved on almost immediately. In fact, Hilbert relinquished any claim to priority and gave unqualified credit for the theory to the physicist. "Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians." In the case of Emmy Noether, it is even more difficult to ascertain the exact contributions she made to general relativity. Mathematical research at the time was largely a verbal affair, with formal publication almost an afterthought, and Noether was especially fond of the conversational approach to math. Hilbert had called her to Gottingen for particular help with the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the field equations to work on the very difficult issue of the conservation of energy in general relativity. (This problem is so tricky that it was only in 1981 that Edward Witten was able to prove that the energy derived from the gravitational field equations is guaranteed to be positive.) (Emmy) Noether's Theorem may be the most important theoretical result in modern physics. Correspondence at the time from and to Einstein, including several references to a lost set of notes by Noether, make it clear that she provided critical help and tutelage during the frenzied months leading up to the final appearance of the field equations. But even more important was that her work on the energy problem led to her discovery of the far-reaching result that we now call Noether's theorem and to a mature mathematical understanding of the gravitational equations themselves. No matter how clear Einstein's vision might have been about what the physical content of a relativistic theory of gravity should be, there was no theory until there was a set of equations that expressed those ideas and that satisfied certain mathematical and physical demands of consistency. This is why Einstein struggled for so many years to put his ideas into a form that would be worthy of the name "theory." And it's the best explanation why general relativity should rightfully be credited to a small handful of authors rather than just Einstein himself. The matter of the correct form of the gravitational field equations aside, it is still true that the formulation of the equivalence principle, the seminal thought experiments, and therefore the initial physical impetus for general relativity was certainly Einstein's alone. Tests of general relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Tests of special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles -- 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]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 07:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <fe1665c4-2369-4b22-a64d-7b503198f93b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #562485 |
Archimedes Plutonium > Can you explain your motivation? > Your motivation is that your mind wants to be with the mainstream and attack any of those that are not. Your mind is of the past century of a Big Bang, Einstein, GR are superior. My mind is in the new century where Maxwell theory rules everything and all forces end up being a Coulomb force, where the Universe is not a Big Bang but a Atom Totality of a big Plutonium atom that grew from a previous Atom Totality of Uranium atom. Where our night sky are a view of the last 6 electrons of 5f6, where a electron dot cloud is a night sky of galaxies and stars. ------------- Ok so if the chick magnet net handle 'Archimedes Plutonium' wasn't enough for you to deem him a kook, how about the above statement? Truly, newsgroups are a great place to observe the disturbed mind in action
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 14:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <DtYFy.80899$3_5.74866@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #562597 |
On 03/15/2016 10:28 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium
>> Can you explain your motivation?
>>
>
> Your motivation is that your mind wants to be with the mainstream and attack any of those that are not. Your mind is of the past century of a Big Bang, Einstein, GR are superior.
>
> My mind is in the new century where Maxwell theory rules everything and all forces end up being a Coulomb force, where the Universe is not a Big Bang but a Atom Totality of a big Plutonium atom that grew from a previous Atom Totality of Uranium atom. Where our night sky are a view of the last 6 electrons of 5f6, where a electron dot cloud is a night sky of galaxies and stars.
> -------------
>
> Ok so if the chick magnet net handle 'Archimedes Plutonium' wasn't enough for you to deem him a kook, how about the above statement?
>
> Truly, newsgroups are a great place to observe the disturbed mind in action
>
Come on, H&V! As Kooks go, you are such a Johnny-come-lately.
Archie is like the ORIGINAL newsgroup kook!
Please show some respect for his priority!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web