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


Groups > sci.physics > #646446 > unrolled thread

For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not.

Started byOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
First post2017-08-18 14:54 -0500
Last post2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 173 — 26 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics


Contents

  For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:01 -0700
      Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
        Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:07 -0700
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:26 -0400
            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:05 -0700
            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:26 -0500
              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:34 -0500
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:53 -0700
              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0500
                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:50 -0700
                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-21 15:39 -0700
                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0700
                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:59 -0700
                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000
                    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 17:16 -0700
                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:04 -0700
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:24 +0000
                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 19:09 -0700
                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:39 +0000
                            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:00 -0700
                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:40 -0700
                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:49 -0700
                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:49 +0000
                                    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 14:58 -0700
                                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
                                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:06 -0700
                                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 00:43 +0000
                                            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 18:03 -0700
                                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000
                                            Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:32 -0700
                                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:50 -0700
                                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:02 -0500
                                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:20 -0700
                                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:38 -0500
                                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:46 -0700
                                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:54 -0700
                                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:38 -0700
                                                    Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:32 -0700
                                                      Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:54 -0700
                                                        Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:24 -0500
                                                          Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:10 -0700
                                                            Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:09 +0000
                                                            Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:14 -0500
                                                              Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 11:41 -0700
                                                                Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 15:05 -0700
                                                                  Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:10 +0000
                                                                Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:07 +0000
                                                                  Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0700
                                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:39 -0500
                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:47 +0000
                              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:53 +0000
                                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:51 -0700
                                  Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 15:35 +0000
                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 08:25 -0500
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 17:58 -0400
                    Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 21:05 -0400
                      Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
                        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 18:00 -0400
                          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
              Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 02:34 -0700
                Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:51 -0700
        Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:15 -0700
          Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:22 -0700
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 11:16 +0000
            Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG  @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
              Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 08:32 -0700
                Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-19 17:46 +0000
                  Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-19 14:08 -0500
                    Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 17:20 -0700
                      Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:34 +0000
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:36 +0000
                      Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 01:33 +0000
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 21:04 -0700
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:07 -0700
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:57 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:17 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:19 -0700
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:00 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:29 +0000
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:26 +0000
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:58 -0700
                              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 16:39 +0000
                                Black Holes are math kook babble john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:46 -0700
                                  Re: Retarded precessing spinny things are kook babble moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 20:07 +0000
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:09 -0500
                              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:13 -0700
                        Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-20 18:07 -0500
                          Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 16:31 -0700
                            Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 08:33 -0500
                              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 07:00 -0700
              Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400
                Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500
        Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500
          Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
            Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 11:55 -0700
              Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-24 00:03 -0700
            Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000
              Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:32 -0700
                Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:48 -0500
                Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 22:12 +0000
              Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
              Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
                  Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
                    Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-24 15:40 -0700
                      Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:04 +0200
                      Re: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:05 +0200
                        Re: Starting/Stopping light. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:45 +0200
                          Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 17:55 -0700
                            Re: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:23 +0200
                              Give it your best shot, Thomas Lahn. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 19:08 -0700
                                Re: Give it your best shot, ****** ****. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 14:15 +0200
                                  Thomas Lahn would ban URL's. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-26 13:36 -0700
                                    Re: ****** **** would ban URL's. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 01:46 +0200
                                    Re: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-08-28 15:55 -0700
                                      Google Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 18:04 +0200
                          If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 18:39 -0700
                            Slow light (was: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:55 +0200
                              Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 19:47 -0700
                            Re: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:52 -0400
                          Re: kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:47 +0200
                            The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-25 19:29 -0700
                              Re: The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 15:36 +0000
                                Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2017-08-26 11:56 -0700
                                  Re: Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 04:31 +0000
                    Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:28 -0700
                      Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:44 -0700
                  Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 14:34 +0200
                    Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:22 -0700
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 16:14 +0200
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:18 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:49 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 18:25 +0200
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:44 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:05 -0500
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 16:09 +0000
                    Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 15:37 +0000
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:51 -0700
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:01 -0500
                      Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200
                        Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000
                          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:22 -0700
                          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
                          Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200
                            Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000
                              Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200
                                Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000
                    Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200
        Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400
          Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000
          Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:00 -0700
        Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
      Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-20 16:01 -0700
      Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-08-21 12:54 -0700
    For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:44 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 22:15 +0000
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:26 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 18:54 -0700
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:06 -0500
    Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:25 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:55 -0700
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 14:17 -0700
        Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:27 -0700
          Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 15:37 -0700
            Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:50 -0700
    For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:29 -0700
      For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:03 -0700
        Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
      Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000

Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  Next page →


#646987 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-23 14:32 -0700
SubjectRe: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.
Message-ID<3d3c28ab-42ac-4989-b69a-1f48420faef0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#646984
MM
"
happens inside an event horizon. 

We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars 
that are orbiting it. 
"

How do you know there's matter there?
You don't see any.
Why couldn't it be "Dark Matter", if there is, indeed, matter?
Why couldn't it be a whirlpool in Space, that absorbs gravity?

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


#646995 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-23 16:48 -0500
SubjectRe: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.
Message-ID<onkt6o$167i$6@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#646987
On 8/23/17 4:32 PM, john wrote:
> MM
> "
> happens inside an event horizon.
> 
> We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
> that are orbiting it.
> "
> 
> How do you know there's matter there?
> You don't see any.
> Why couldn't it be "Dark Matter", if there is, indeed, matter?

It CAN be. Dark matter is just matter that does not interact 
electromagnetically. Why, what did you think it was?

> Why couldn't it be a whirlpool in Space, that absorbs gravity?
>

What does THAT mean -- absorbs gravity?


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

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


#647001 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2017-08-23 22:12 +0000
SubjectRe: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.
Message-ID<onkuka$fmr$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#646987
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"
>happens inside an event horizon. 

>We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars 
>that are orbiting it. 
>"

>How do you know there's matter there?

I just said we see stars orbiting it.
From Kepler's Laws and the period of the orbit, and the orbit
itself, we can tell what the mass of the thing being orbited is.
It's about 4.3 million solar masses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit

>You don't see any.

Doesn't matter.  We see a bunch of stars orbiting "something" that
gives off no light of its own and has a mass of about 4.3 million
solar masses.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg

>Why couldn't it be "Dark Matter", if there is, indeed, matter?

I don't think it is possible to have that much matter (dark or
otherwise) in such a small volume without it collapsing into a
black hole.

We know its mass, and we know its maximum diameter (from the closest
approach of a star that does not collide with it).

>Why couldn't it be a whirlpool in Space, that absorbs gravity?

"Absorbs gravity" doesn't even make sense (not even wrong).
"Whirlpool in Space" makes no sense as well (whirlpool of _what_?)

Again, we know that "it" has a mass of about 4.3 million solar
masses. Its diameter is less than 45 AU, otherwise the star S14 would
collide with it.  What else could it be?

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


#646994 — Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.

FromOdd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
SubjectRe: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly.
Message-ID<onkt4e$167i$5@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#646984
On 8/23/17 4:26 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> 
>> We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly, and you need
>> INFINITE precision to measure a TRUE singularity.
> 
> Doesn't matter, it's the size of the event horizon that counts, not
> the singularity. As long as there is enough mass inside an event horizon
> there is a black hole, even if there is weird physics unknown to us
> inside that prevents formation of a singularity.  We can never know what
> happens inside an event horizon.
> 
> We see that Sgr A* is there, not by seeing it, but by tracking stars
> that are orbiting it.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S0%E2%80%93102
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S2_(star)
> amongst others
> 

And to emphasize this, the "true" black hole is NOT the singularity. The 
defining feature is the event horizon.

There's no point in demanding proof in terms of something unobservable.

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

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


#647008 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
SubjectRe: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.
Message-ID<onl1h0$pm7$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#646984
Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>  Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

>"Thought", not "known".

"Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty. 

Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
(otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg

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


#647046 — Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.

FromMartin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
Date2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
SubjectRe: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity.
Message-ID<onm5e7$s7h$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#647008
On 24/08/2017 00:01, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:
> 
>>   Sagittarius A* is THOUGHT to be the location of a supermassive black hole
>>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
> 
>> "Thought", not "known".
> 
> "Thought" to a rather high degree of certainty.
> 
> Orbits of multiple stars are tracked orbiting "something"
> with a mass of about 4.1 million solar masses but a radius of less than 45 AU
> (otherwise the star S14 would collide with it).
> 
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Galactic_centre_orbits.svg

Wiki claims Sgr A has Rs ~ 1.3x10^10 M which I make to be about 80AU
(in the section on Schwarzchild radii - which is suspect is out of date)

(although the page on Sgr A itself says 4.1M sun and about 45AU)

Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

Is it possible to see and interpret gravitational and Doppler spectral 
shifts for it as well as positional measurements?

Presumably we have to wait patiently for something chunky to go down the 
gravitational plughole and then we will get to find out the period of 
the last stable orbit more precisely.

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

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


#647069 — Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

Frommoroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
SubjectRe: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.
Message-ID<onn0vf$cm9$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to#647046
Jeff-Relf.Me  @. writes:

>Martin Brown wrote:
>> Star S14 must be getting awfully close to grazing the event horizon.

>A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU.

The 45 AU is the maximum radius of the object, not the precision of
any singularity.  They know the center of mass of the object (the
singularity, if there is one) to better than that, just from S14's orbit.

Regardless, the defining characteristic of a black hole is having an
event horizon, not a singularity.  Who knows, perhaps there is physics,
unknown to us, that prevents formation of a singularity in a black hole.
Doesn't matter, as long as there is an event horizon, it's a black hole.

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


#647113 — Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

FromDouble-A <double-a3@hush.com>
Date2017-08-24 15:40 -0700
SubjectRe: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
Message-ID<05f12085-6295-4a6a-a119-0cb9aa44417f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#647069
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 3:25:31 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
> 
> Quoting WikiPedia: <<
> 
>   [ Some think Sgr* is ] 4.1 million solar masses.
> 
>   The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU [...]
> 
>   the American group found 3.7 ± 0.2 million solar masses.
>          [...]
>   [S14] came within 45 AU without colliding.  >>
> 
>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole
> 
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> The corresponding Schwarzschild radius is .08 AU.
> 
> It could be anything, something unknown, maybe a black star.
> 
> A _TRUE_ black hole has inifnite precision.
> This, above, shows nothing close to that.
> 
> There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.


Light actually accelerates as it leaves a gravitational field.  It verifiably does so when it leaves the Sun's field.  So how could a gravitational field, no matter how strong, trap it inside?

Double-A

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


#647189 — Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-25 20:04 +0200
SubjectRe: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none.
Message-ID<2161448.jE0xQCEvom@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647113
A. A. Cummings (deceased) moaned in his grave:

> Light actually accelerates as it leaves a gravitational field.
> 
> It verifiably does so when it leaves the Sun's field.

You are confusing the *measured* *coordinate* speed of light with the 
*local*, *instantaneous*, *proper*, *constant* speed of light.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_light_in_non-inertial_reference_frames>

> So how could a gravitational field, no matter how strong, trap it inside?

Gravitational fields as understood before the theories of relativity are an 
illusion: gravity is just an observable effect of curved spacetime on 
bodies.  Actually, the geodesics of spacetime are lines with non-zero 
curvature if spacetime is curved, and the paths of light describe precisely 
those geodesics (hence gravitational lensing).

However, that the *coordinate* speed of light as measured by a distant 
observer is *zero* or *negative* at and beyond the outer event horizon of a 
black hole is *precisely* the reason why you see *no* light (or any other 
information) coming from that region – why the black hole is called a 
*black* hole: the escape velocity there is *greater* than the speed of 
light.  (IIUC, you could still see a ring of light around the black hole at 
1.5 Schwarzschild radii, where light is forced to go into orbit around the 
black hole, therefore also called the “photon sphere” of a black hole.)

You will not be able to understand black holes without at least a basic 
understanding of general relativity, as they are a concept based on that 
theory.

For a start, consider an image:
<http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150525-a-black-hole-would-clone-you>

(The grids represent the geodesics of spacetime.  You can clearly see that 
some lead into, but not out of, the black hole.)

F’up2 <news:sci.physics.relativity>

-- 
PointedEars

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

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


#647190 — Re: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second.

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-25 20:05 +0200
SubjectRe: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second.
Message-ID<2098531.NG923GbCHz@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647113
 wrote:

> <PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>
> You ( MrAA ) wrote:
>> Light actually accelerates as it leaves a gravitational field.
>> It verifiably does so when it leaves the Sun's field.
>> So how could a gravitational field, no matter how strong, trap it inside?
> 
> Under the right conditions ( in the opposite of a vacuum )
> you can slow lased photons to near ZERO meters/second.
> They're TRAPPED there; for awhile, at least.

Not even wrong.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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


#647204 — Re: Starting/Stopping light.

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-25 21:45 +0200
SubjectRe: Starting/Stopping light.
Message-ID<4795995.Sb9uPGUboI@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647190
 wrote:

> <PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'>

For crying out loud, get yourself a proper newsreader.

> You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied to me:
>> > Under the right conditions ( in the opposite of a vacuum )
>> > you can slow lased photons to near ZERO meters/second.
>> > They're TRAPPED there; for awhile, at least.
>> 
>> Not even wrong.
> 
> How so, rude boy ?

An anti-social address-munging pseudonymous such as yourself who is lacking 
the basic courtesy of introducing oneself by name, and complying with 
Internet standards, should not presume to lecture others, especially those 
who do comply with those norms and standards, about perceived rudeness.
 
> Harvard Professor Lene Hau uses LaserCooled sodium to Stop/ReStart light.
> 
> Quoting " Light Changed to Matter, Then Stopped and Moved " <<
> 
>   CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 8, 2007 -- By converting light
>   into matter and then back again, physicists have for
>   the first time stopped a light pulse and then
>   restarted it a small distance away.
> […]
> https://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=28520

Assuming that to be true (I would not trust photonics.com farther they I can 
throw the printout of their stuff; it is _not_ a peer-reviewed journal, and 
the article gives *no* *references*):

The conditions described there are _not_ “the opposite of a vacuum”, unless 
one defines that to mean “anything but vacuum”.  This term is just pseudo-
scientific word salad; there really is no such thing.  Instead, the “light 
pulse” is “[stopped]” “in a supercooled sodium cloud”.  So yes, that is not 
vacuum (it is not mostly devoid of particles: there is sodium there), but 
also not “the opposite of vacuum”.  (Do you even grasp what such a cloud 
actually is?)

Also, you are overlooking the simple fact that, if it is even true, it is 
not the same light that is being “restarted” that was “stopped” before.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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


#647253 — Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.

FromJeff-Relf.Me @.
Date2017-08-25 17:55 -0700
SubjectPosting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.
Message-ID<Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.25--5.55pm.Seattle.2017>
In reply to#647204
You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied to me:
> > > Not even wrong.
> > 
> > How so, rude boy ?
> 
> ...the basic courtesy of introducing oneself by name

My name is Jeff Relf, as in " http://Jeff-Relf.Me/ ".
Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.
It will get spammed, making it useless; so I post a URL instead.

I'm far from anonymous, obviously.

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


#647256 — Re: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-26 03:23 +0200
SubjectRe: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.
Message-ID<1944945.NgBsaNRSFp@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647253
 wrote:

> You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied to me:

I did _not_ reply *to you*.  I posted a follow-up to one of your public 
articles, which is a very different thing.  Newsgroups are _not_ a 1:1 
communication medium.

>> > > Not even wrong.
>> > How so, rude boy ?
>> ...the basic courtesy of introducing oneself by name
> 
> My name is Jeff Relf,

Then that name belongs in the “From” header field value of your articles as 
a “comment” per RFC 5536, the Netnews Article Format specification:

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5536>

> as in " http://Jeff-Relf.Me/ ".

This is Usenet; it is _not_ the Internet and _not_ the World Wide Web.

IOW: “Internet is the thing with cables; Usenet is the thing with *people*.”

> Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.

Nonsense.

> It will get spammed, making it useless; so I post a URL instead.

The “From” header field is defined as an *address* header field.  An e-mail 
address is its *minimum* required content.  It is so for good reason: 
Private discussions such as this should be done *in private* as they are 
off-topic; there should be away to contact the author of an article *only*.

Whether you also receive spam directed to that address is a different issue.
Whether and how you handle that is yet another.

<http://www.interhack.net/pubs/munging-harmful/>

Handling spam is not rocket science; these days, even a fourth-grader with 
average intelligence can do it (e-mail clients and Web mail providers offer 
effective spam filters *for free*).  So not being able to handle spam is a 
lame excuse for deliberately violating Netiquette guidelines and Internet 
standards, burdening others with the consequences of one’s 
ineptitude/laziness.  It is considered *extremely* anti-social, rude 
behavior in Usenet.  It is probably also a violation of the Acceptable Use 
Policy/Policies of your service provider(s), which may cost you your account 
there.

You have been warned.
 
> I'm far from anonymous, obviously.

Not in Usenet.  Just look at the (*proper*) attribution lines that your 
invalid “From” header field causes in a *working* newsreader.

F’up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

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

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


#647266 — Give it your best shot, Thomas Lahn.

FromJeff-Relf.Me @.
Date2017-08-25 19:08 -0700
SubjectGive it your best shot, Thomas Lahn.
Message-ID<Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.25--7.08pm.Seattle.2017>
In reply to#647256
You ( Thomas Lahn ) are complaining to me ( yes, _me_ )
because your newsreader is well borked;
it doesn't know MIME, for one thing.

Likely, you can't configure Mozilla Thunderbird;
too many settings, CSS, JavaScipt, extensions, etc.

You told me ( yes, _me_ ):
> I did _not_ reply *to you*.

Stop lying to yourself, please; you replied to me.

> > Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.
> 
> Nonsense.

Big Brother's spam filters reject the good stuff,
while letting a flood of spam through, 
devaluing emails and text.

> > I'm " Jeff-Relf.Me ", not anonymous.
> 
> This is Usenet; it is _not_ the Internet and _not_ the World Wide Web.

Don't lie to yourself, we've _both_ the www and Usenet.

> > It will get spammed, making it useless; so I post a URL instead.
> 
> It is probably also a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy/Policies 
> of your service provider(s), which may cost you your account there.
> You have been warned.

Give it your best shot.
It's you vs. my DEEP understanding of servers, newsreaders, and kooks.

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


#647295 — Re: Give it your best shot, ****** ****.

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-26 14:15 +0200
SubjectRe: Give it your best shot, ****** ****.
Message-ID<3701887.1IzOArtZ34@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647266
 wrote:

> You ( Thomas Lahn ) are complaining to me ( yes, _me_ )
> because your newsreader is well borked;
> it doesn't know MIME, for one thing.

Can’t you read?  KNode does support MIME.  It also supports HTML messages, 
but it is *a security risk* to display them, so I will not enable that.

HTML-only messages (that is, those with “Content-Type: text/html”) do not 
belong in Network News.  Multipart HTML (that is, messages with “Content-
Type: multipart/mixed” and at least one part with “Content-Type: text/html”) 
do not belong in Network News either.  Multipart messages in general do not 
belong in non-binary groups such as this at all.

> Likely, you can't configure Mozilla Thunderbird;
> too many settings, CSS, JavaScipt, extensions, etc.

You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about or whom you are 
talking to.

BTW, only lusers™ change the Subject to contain an opponent’s name.

>> > Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong.
>> 
>> Nonsense.
> 
> Big Brother's spam filters reject the good stuff,
> while letting a flood of spam through,
> devaluing emails and text.

You are delusional.
 
>> > I'm " Jeff-Relf.Me ", not anonymous.
>> 
>> This is Usenet; it is _not_ the Internet and _not_ the World Wide Web.
> 
> Don't lie to yourself, we've _both_ the www and Usenet.

*This* is _not_ the WWW.
 
>> > It will get spammed, making it useless; so I post a URL instead.
>> 
>> It is probably also a violation of the Acceptable Use Policy/Policies
>> of your service provider(s), which may cost you your account there.
>> You have been warned.
> 
> Give it your best shot.
> It's you vs. my DEEP understanding of servers, newsreaders, and kooks.

You are delusional.

Apparently you misunderstand this to be a discussion about what is 
acceptable.  It is not.

I am telling you that you are doing wrong, why you are doing wrong, and the 
possible consequences of doing wrong.

It is like me noticing that you are driving with a broken headlight, 
notifying you that if you are stopped by the police this could turn out to 
be expensive for you, and you may even lose your driver’s licence.  So you 
better fix it sooner rather than later.

You can either stop doing wrong, or you can continue doing wrong.

For the final time, I am the one giving you the choice.

F’up2 poster

-- 
PointedEars

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

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


#647356 — Thomas Lahn would ban URL's.

FromJeff-Relf.Me @.
Date2017-08-26 13:36 -0700
SubjectThomas Lahn would ban URL's.
Message-ID<Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.26--1.36pm.Seattle.2017>
In reply to#647295
You ( Thomas Lahn ) told me:
> you may lose your [ Usenet ] driver’s licence.

Putting "Jeff-Relf.Me" in my "From:" makes sense;
putting an email address there does NOT make sense.
And nothing you do will ever change that; you can't force me.

> > Big Brother's spam filters reject the good stuff,
> > while letting a flood of spam through,
> > devaluing emails and text.
> 
> You are delusional.

gMail handles spam correctly, as does my private server,
but most others do not, and it devalues email and texts.
 
> > Don't lie to yourself, we've _both_ the www and Usenet.
> 
> *This* is _not_ the WWW.

Usenet has URL's; the web is here, now.

> BTW, only lusers™ change the Subject to contain an opponent’s name.

I want everyone to see how you'd ban URL's.  OK ?

> > Likely, you can't configure Mozilla Thunderbird;
> > too many settings, CSS, JavaScipt, extensions, etc.
> 
> You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about
> or whom you are talking to.

I'm talking to a guy who uses kNode 
because he can't configure Thunderbird.

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


#647376 — Re: ****** **** would ban URL's.

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-27 01:46 +0200
SubjectRe: ****** **** would ban URL's.
Message-ID<1820608.oMNUckLgyt@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647356
 wrote:

> You ( Thomas Lahn ) told me:
>> you may lose your [ Usenet ] driver’s licence.
> 
> Putting "Jeff-Relf.Me" in my "From:" makes sense;

No, it does not.

> putting an email address there does NOT make sense.

Yes, it does.

> And nothing you do will ever change that;

I don’t think so, Tim.

> you can't force me.

Indeed, I will have to leave that to others.
 
>> > Big Brother's spam filters reject the good stuff,
>> > while letting a flood of spam through,
>> > devaluing emails and text.
>> 
>> You are delusional.
> 
> gMail handles spam correctly, as does my private server,
> but most others do not, and it devalues email and texts.
>  
>> > Don't lie to yourself, we've _both_ the www and Usenet.
>> 
>> *This* is _not_ the WWW.
> 
> Usenet has URL's; the web is here, now.
> 
>> BTW, only lusers™ change the Subject to contain an opponent’s name.
> 
> I want everyone to see how you'd ban URL's.  OK ?

I don’t have to “ban _URLs_”.

| Path: news.mb-net.net!open-news-
network.org!.POSTED.c-67-170-105-30.hsd1.wa.comcast.net!not-for-mail
| From: Jeff-Relf.Me  @.
| Newsgroups: sci.physics,news.software.readers,alt.free.newsservers
| Subject: Thomas Lahn would ban URL's.
| […]
| Organization: MB-NET.NET for Open-News-Network e.V.
| Message-ID: <Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.26--1.36pm.Seattle.2017>
| […]

,-<http://open-news-network.org/node/38>
| 
| Terms of use
| 
| […]
| Any natural person who abides by the following terms may sign up and use 
| opennews: Articles posted have valid "From:", "Reply -To:" or "Sender:" 
| headers, and the adresses are used with permission of their respective 
| owners. If an *.invalid TLD address is used in the "From:"-header, a valid 
| "Reply-To:" header is included. The user does not engage in behaviour that 
| potentially disrupts server operations. […] The user abides by the laws
| governing their own location and that of the server. Every user may be 
| held liable for any article that is posted using his personal access 
| account. […] Opennews does not carry binary newsgroups. […]
| The server operators reserve the right to exclude any user from the 
| service for no stated reason and to wholly or partially discontinue the 
| service with no prior notification.
| 
| […]
| We suggest observing proper netiquette (see e.g. 
| http://www.albion.com/netiquette/).
`---

| Injection-Info: gwaiyur.mb-net.net; posting-
host="c-67-170-105-30.hsd1.wa.comcast.net:67.170.105.30";
| 	logging-data="29830"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@open-news-
network.org"
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[x] done
[x] PLONK
[x] F’up2 poster
 
>> > Likely, you can't configure Mozilla Thunderbird;
>> > too many settings, CSS, JavaScipt, extensions, etc.
>> 
>> You have not the slightest idea what you are talking about
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> or whom you are talking to.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I'm talking to a guy who uses kNode
> because he can't configure Thunderbird.

See?

-- 
PointedEars

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

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


#647670 — Re: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2017-08-28 15:55 -0700
SubjectRe: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.
Message-ID<D5C9ED70.B3759%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#647356
On 8/28/17, 2:25 PM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.28--2.25pm.Seattle.2017,
"<Jeff-Relf.Me  @.>" <> wrote:

> 
> You ( SteveCarroll ) replied ( to me ):
>>> If only Thomas Lahn ( PointedEars, Zollikofen ) could program JavaScript,
>>> he'd be able to configure/extend Mozilla Thunderbird;
>>> instead, he has to use ( the 100% proprietary ) kNode.
>> 
>> [ http://pointedears.de/scripts/test/es-matrix/ ]
> 
> Yes, but did you know about his GoogleGroups Spam Remover:
> 
>   https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts/blob/master/ggSpamFilter.user.js
> 
> Who's been using GoogleGroups to RoboSpam us, Jonas Eklundh ?
> 
>    SteveCarroll:  Steve_Carroll│fretwizzer    https://twitter.com/fretwizz
> GoogleGroupsBot:  Steve_Carroll│tmelmosfire  Steven_Petruzzellis
> Jonas_Eklundh

For those who are using GG for whatever reason that is pretty cool... and
reduces the harm of Carroll's nonsense. Still, for anyone who just lurks it
will likely chase them off.

> German speakers, like Lahn, have an odd idea of what Usenet is.
> 
> Usenet isn't even Reddit, much less Wikipedia.
> No, Usenet is a sea of fucking spam, a juvenile playground.
> If it were anything else, I wouldn't be here.
> 
> Buy a block of gigs from a binary server,
> e.g. BlockNews.NET or Usenet-News.NET,
> and you have a lifetime of ( mostly ) carefree posting.
> 
> If you want to be really, really bad, post via  Alt.NET .

Carroll uses GG because no other provider would let him get away with his
nonsense.
 


-- 
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>

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


#648016 — Google Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.)

FromThomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date2017-08-31 18:04 +0200
SubjectGoogle Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.)
Message-ID<2379147.BddDVKsqQX@PointedEars.de>
In reply to#647670
“Snit” amok-crossposted across 6(!) newsgroups, 2 outside Big 8, w/o F’up2:

> On 8/28/17, 2:25 PM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.28--2.25pm.Seattle.2017,
> "<Jeff-Relf.Me  @.>" <> wrote:

Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

>> […] did you know about his GoogleGroups Spam Remover:

Unfortunately, as Google Groups works presently, it can only be a spam 
_filter_ (one that marks spam and formats spam messages, reducing their 
opacity by default), _not_ a remover: Messing too much with Google Groups’ 
display causes the infinite scrolling to break (see inline comment).

>> […] and you have a lifetime of ( mostly ) carefree posting.

By which you mean (seemingly) carefree *for* *yourself*, as in “I don’t care 
about the problems that my behavior causes for others” or “I don’t care 
about others at all because I am a mindbogglingly stupid, inconsiderate, 
anti-social asshole”.

>>   
https://github.com/PointedEars/userscripts/blob/master/ggSpamFilter.user.js
>> […]

If you have a Greasemonkey-compatible browser extension installed, like 
Tampermonkey, installation of the userscript can be as simple as selecting 
“Raw” there :)

F‘up2 <news:comp.lang.javascript>

-- 
PointedEars
FAQ: <http://PointedEars.de/faq> | <http://PointedEars.de/es-matrix>
<https://github.com/PointedEars> | <http://PointedEars.de/wsvn/>
Twitter: @PointedEars2 | Please do not cc me./Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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


#647257 — If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.

FromJeff-Relf.Me @.
Date2017-08-25 18:39 -0700
SubjectIf this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.
Message-ID<Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.25--6.39pm.Seattle.2017>
In reply to#647204
You ( Thomas Lahn ) replied to me:
> > Harvard Professor Lene Hau uses LaserCooled sodium to Stop/ReStart light.
> > 
> > Quoting " Light Changed to Matter, Then Stopped and Moved " <<
> > 
> >   CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 8, 2007 -- By converting light
> >   into matter and then back again, physicists have for
> >   the first time stopped a light pulse and then
> >   restarted it a small distance away.
> > […]
> > https://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=28520
> 
> even if true, it is not the same light that is being “restarted”
> that was “stopped” before.

The ReStarted/ReLocated light has the same signal, with the same data;
hence its usefulness; see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light
If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.

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


Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics


csiph-web