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

Groups > sci.physics > #618405 > unrolled thread

Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-12 21:12 -0600
    Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 19:31 -0800
    Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-13 09:46 -0800
      Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:32 -0800
      Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 10:19 -0800
    Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 22:07 +0000
      Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-13 18:45 -0800
        Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 12:49 +0000
        Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:38 -0800
      Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:27 +0100
        Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 02:31 -0800
          Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-14 07:57 -0600
            Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:28 -0800
      Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 05:23 -0800
        Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-14 08:22 -0600
          Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:18 -0800
            Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-14 09:49 -0600
              Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 08:04 -0800
          Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:29 -0800
          Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:41 -0800
            Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 11:48 -0800
              Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 09:03 -0800
        Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-14 18:52 -0500
          Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 21:14 -0800
      Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:36 -0800
        Re: Is sci.physics now 100 % scrap ? and AM transmitter antenna stuff noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:26 -0800
      Michael Moroney can't/won't read me properly. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2017-02-14 18:18 -0800
        The inmates always hate their description moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-15 04:28 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#618645

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
[]
> 
> You seem bitter, inconsolable.
> 
> Maybe you should avoid science.
> 
> Poor dumb Ed Prochak. Look what happened to him.
> 
> What a shame.

I'm just fine JM. Been off line due to a rich and active real life.

You must feel a lot of pressure with the high humidity
making that heavy air.

And you still think you won an argument. LOL

Enjoy,
  ed

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

#618828

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 11:48:49 AM UTC-8, edpr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 10:41:56 AM UTC-5, James McGinn wrote:
> []
> > 
> > You seem bitter, inconsolable.
> > 
> > Maybe you should avoid science.
> > 
> > Poor dumb Ed Prochak. Look what happened to him.
> > 
> > What a shame.
> 
> I'm just fine JM. Been off line due to a rich and active real life.
> 
> You must feel a lot of pressure with the high humidity
> making that heavy air.
> 
> And you still think you won an argument. LOL
> 
> Enjoy,
>   ed

I didn't win.  You lost.  

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/__GexlZmXlU/0vJocDtlCgAJ

Nobody wins when science is reduced to propaganda.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

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

#618689

On 2/14/2017 8:23 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:07:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> writes:
>
> Holding a consistent userID handle could serve to improve content quality.
>
>>> Is sci.physics now 100 % clutter ?
>>
>>>        any real physics at all being posted ?
>
> Physics is complicated, not a rehashTag@# of contents in its textbooks.
>
>> Thanks for trying to inject some actual science here, but to answer your
>> question, yes, sci.physics is now just a looney bin.
>
> If by now is meant since 1990s, then the looney has just grown, as of late.
> Used to be a time, a large number of posters here had *.edu domain named
> email addresses. I've not seen one here, since I returned to Usenet,
> like six years ago. Must have something to do with new universities' policies.
>
>> In the first rubber room is this tornado guy who thinks water doesn't
>> evaporate, then in the next cell there is the really bad programmer who
>> thinks there is no randomness, then there's the guy who thinks the
>> universe is a giant atom, next door is the guy fascinated with precessing
>> spinny things, then in the next cell's occupant thinks the moon makes
>> water, then a few rubber rooms of babblers, then the cell with the guy
>> obsessed with one of the babblers, a couple of believers in ghosts and ESP
>> and last but certainly not least, an entire ward full of those who just
>> know that Einstein is wrong and each has his very own theory to replace
>> Einstein's relativity.
>
> Many here, there, or anywhere... are not just going to simply worship OneStone.
.
Hey, I resemble that guy obsessed with one of the babblers! (Or is HVAC 
obsessed with me?)

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

#618753

On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:52:35 PM UTC-5, benj wrote:
> On 2/14/2017 8:23 AM, Mahipal wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 5:07:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> writes:
> >
> > Holding a consistent userID handle could serve to improve content quality.
> >
> >>> Is sci.physics now 100 % clutter ?
> >>
> >>>        any real physics at all being posted ?
> >
> > Physics is complicated, not a rehashTag@# of contents in its textbooks.
> >
> >> Thanks for trying to inject some actual science here, but to answer your
> >> question, yes, sci.physics is now just a looney bin.
> >
> > If by now is meant since 1990s, then the looney has just grown, as of late.
> > Used to be a time, a large number of posters here had *.edu domain named
> > email addresses. I've not seen one here, since I returned to Usenet,
> > like six years ago. Must have something to do with new universities' policies.
> >
> >> In the first rubber room is this tornado guy who thinks water doesn't
> >> evaporate, then in the next cell there is the really bad programmer who
> >> thinks there is no randomness, then there's the guy who thinks the
> >> universe is a giant atom, next door is the guy fascinated with precessing
> >> spinny things, then in the next cell's occupant thinks the moon makes
> >> water, then a few rubber rooms of babblers, then the cell with the guy
> >> obsessed with one of the babblers, a couple of believers in ghosts and ESP
> >> and last but certainly not least, an entire ward full of those who just
> >> know that Einstein is wrong and each has his very own theory to replace
> >> Einstein's relativity.
> >
> > Many here, there, or anywhere... are not just going to simply worship OneStone.
> .
> Hey, I resemble that guy obsessed with one of the babblers! (Or is HVAC 
> obsessed with me?)

Sir BenjJi, I've always learned from your demeanor, kindness, strength, and wisdom.

HVAC? Well, HVAC can get lost and go suck a skunk. No offense HVAC. He he...

Remember the one great Star Trek episode? In which they prove that it
is easier for a well behaved civil man to act like a barbarian than
the other way around. If not, spend an hour watching it for the first time.

-- Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple"... as in Loops, Syrup, Wood. 

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

#618582

On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:07:19 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> writes:
> 
> >Is sci.physics now 100 % clutter ?
> 
> 
> >        any real physics at all being posted ?
> 
> Thanks for trying to inject some actual science here,

It's just cut and paste you freekin retard! 



 but to answer your
> question, yes, sci.physics is now just a looney bin.


Sour grapes.  You all lost the argument. 

> 
> In the first rubber room is this tornado guy who thinks water doesn't
> evaporate, 

You simpleton's are so desperate you have to misrepresent my words.

You idiots lost.  Deal with it.

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

#618667

must be a big drive of weather,
the amount of vapor in the air,
making it rise along with hot air, and
that is just avagadroic, pascalian etc. webers ... hertz?

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

#618726 — Michael Moroney can't/won't read me properly.

Edit WikiPedia, if you want to make a lasting contribution.
Usenet is a playground, the opposite of work.

Obviously, you ( Michael Moroney ) can't/won't read me properly.
I say " randomness is ignorance ", not " there is no randomness ".
"Big/Einsteinian" and "Small/Random" are _relative, _not _intrinsic.

Quite unlike you, or anyone else here, I post _useful apps; 
source and object code, input and output.

So, even if I'm a " really bad programmer ", you're worse.

The best code ( for me, and only me ) 
is the code I designed and wrote myself; to wit:

  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.PNG
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/g600.TXT
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Macros.HTM

  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/SleepPat.PNG
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/SleepPat.HTM
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/C++CodingRules.HTM

  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/MyPlayList.HTM
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Posts.TXT
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Phy_Regs.HTM

  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Diff.PNG
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/X.HTM
  http://Jeff-Relf.Me/userContent.CSS.TXT

  etc.

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

#618751 — The inmates always hate their description

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Obviously, you ( Michael Moroney ) can't/won't read me properly.

I read you perfectly, of course.

>I say " randomness is ignorance ", not " there is no randomness ".

You deny the real definition of randomness, and (like Ken Seto) make up
your own definition. "There is no randomness" is what you claim, as long
as we stick to the correct definition.

>Quite unlike you, or anyone else here, I post _useful apps; 

Useful only to yourself, and quite unmaintainable.

>So, even if I'm a " really bad programmer ", you're worse.

And you have seen my code?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web