Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #726985 > unrolled thread
| Started by | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-02-12 21:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-02-18 21:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 209 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-12 21:49 -0800
ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-12 21:52 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 00:02 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 05:03 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 14:54 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 16:03 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 11:22 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 05:13 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:43 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 05:20 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 05:24 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:43 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 08:43 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 11:24 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 16:51 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-02-13 21:03 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 13:29 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 22:46 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 15:51 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 14:03 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 12:10 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 22:27 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 17:07 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 22:46 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 17:10 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 17:15 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 03:12 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 21:57 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 00:15 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 12:20 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 09:02 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 17:16 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 11:50 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 21:30 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 13:50 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 22:27 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 15:24 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 23:52 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 22:14 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 06:35 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 23:13 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-15 01:38 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 13:22 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 05:35 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 14:10 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 12:41 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 22:25 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-15 17:10 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 02:12 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-15 22:30 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 13:36 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-16 07:38 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 16:08 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 14:35 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 16:10 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 00:51 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 17:11 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 02:12 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 19:19 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 15:53 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 08:51 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 17:07 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 17:18 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-16 09:25 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-16 09:29 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 09:53 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 13:57 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 19:01 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 17:28 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 00:08 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 00:16 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 19:13 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 12:16 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 05:44 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 14:37 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 06:42 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 14:50 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 06:57 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 16:43 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 11:34 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 19:41 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 12:42 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 20:52 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 21:06 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 21:08 +0000
My (non-vocalized) transcendental meditation chant is "nonsense", not "ohm". Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-17 15:39 -0800
Re: My (non-vocalized) transcendental meditation chant is "nonsense", not "ohm". Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> - 2019-02-17 23:46 +0000
When did your obsession with octogenarians begin ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-17 16:29 -0800
Re: When did your obsession with octogenarians begin ? Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> - 2019-02-18 00:49 +0000
GallopingInsanity Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2019-02-17 17:02 -0800
Re: GallopingInsanity Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> - 2019-02-18 14:28 +0000
Re: GallopingInsanity Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-02-18 15:47 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 14:05 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 14:19 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 00:50 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-17 20:50 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 14:35 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 07:59 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 18:58 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 00:50 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 17:37 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 17:56 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 17:33 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 02:35 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 04:44 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 19:59 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 13:02 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 21:14 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 13:48 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 21:58 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 14:01 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-18 14:31 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 15:11 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 16:05 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 15:15 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 13:53 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 23:56 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 16:52 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 03:04 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 19:31 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 12:41 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 05:21 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 15:11 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 10:04 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 19:06 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 11:32 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 12:40 -0700
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 20:42 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 13:04 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 23:08 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 16:18 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 01:58 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-20 19:42 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 14:55 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 08:37 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 17:15 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 09:37 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 18:40 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 12:05 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 20:30 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 12:55 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 21:26 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 13:58 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 22:18 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 17:35 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-22 03:15 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 17:31 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 23:08 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 15:53 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 21:10 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 12:42 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 08:19 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 18:06 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-22 16:50 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-22 23:38 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 02:28 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 14:35 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 14:35 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-23 07:32 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 13:52 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 15:21 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-23 16:04 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-23 21:33 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 04:03 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 01:27 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-24 09:51 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-25 11:17 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 05:45 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:55 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 13:59 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 10:04 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-26 07:27 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-26 22:40 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2019-02-27 00:08 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-27 00:29 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-23 07:28 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-22 08:52 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-21 17:27 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-21 03:57 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-19 15:29 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-19 23:56 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-18 21:04 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-18 20:55 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 00:03 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 13:54 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-16 23:56 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-16 09:21 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Earle Jones <earledjones@icloud.com> - 2019-02-15 17:38 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 07:37 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 14:36 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-16 13:51 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-14 23:44 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 18:19 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2019-02-15 04:57 +0000
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 22:57 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2019-02-13 20:24 -0500
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 18:32 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-13 21:47 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-14 12:33 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-14 18:05 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-15 18:41 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 00:13 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-17 00:25 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... Buck Futter <DognPolisher@hotmail.com> - 2019-02-17 19:37 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2019-02-14 12:34 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-16 18:17 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-17 21:50 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... poraty6@gmail.com - 2019-02-18 20:47 -0800
Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-02-18 21:35 -0800
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 19:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4cdd8$n8n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727748 |
<poraty6@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, February 17, 2019 at 6:43:51 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> You speak for everyone? >>> >>> Probably not Mikey or Penile. >>> Lets take a survey: >>> Who in this group thinks the Word of Odd is Absolutely Verifiable, and He >>> is the Big Dog- a veritable Wiz of Truth? >>> P retty D amn everyone, I reckon- theyre smart folks!! >>> >> >> Well lets find out. >> Dont jump to a conclusion before data, John. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > ===========================common guys > may be you will start talking physics- for a change ?? > are yu getting older ??... > how about > what is more basic fields > or mass particles sub and sub ??built /composed ? > and how about > > that there is a basic mass particle that is the smallest ?? > === > TIA > Y.P > ==================== > > Particles ARE quantized disturbances in fields. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 12:42 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <25d4fb57-46be-4d2c-96fd-cf5c4edb37ca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727751 |
Odd “ Particles ARE quantized disturbances in fields. “ Yes. And they help create the field below them by their emissions. You are way too black and white. You need to quit reading and start weeding out what doesn’t mesh together. Start now. Quit running your mouth when you obviously don’t have a coherent conceptual model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 20:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4chjb$1aci$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727758 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “ > > Particles ARE quantized disturbances in fields. > > “ > Yes. And they help create the field below them by their emissions. “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. There you go again, using words as though you know what they mean when you plainly don’t. Nor are you interested in learning what they mean. You’re too self-absorbed to be interested in anything but your own mental products. > You are way too black and white. > You need to quit reading and start weeding out what doesn’t mesh together. > Start now. > Quit running your mouth when you obviously don’t have a coherent conceptual model. > Again, the conceptual model is very clear to those that know what the words mean. Since you believe that “conceptual model” means “can be explained in everyday language so that third graders can follow it”, you don’t even know what THAT term means. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 21:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4cic2$1dtr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727760 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> “ >> >> Particles ARE quantized disturbances in fields. >> >> “ >> Yes. And they help create the field below them by their emissions. > > “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. > > There you go again, using words as though you know what they mean when you > plainly don’t. Nor are you interested in learning what they mean. You’re > too self-absorbed to be interested in anything but your own mental > products. > >> You are way too black and white. >> You need to quit reading and start weeding out what doesn’t mesh together. >> Start now. >> Quit running your mouth when you obviously don’t have a coherent conceptual model. >> > > Again, the conceptual model is very clear to those that know what the words > mean. > > Since you believe that “conceptual model” means “can be explained in > everyday language so that third graders can follow it”, you don’t even know > what THAT term means. > > > John, you’re pretty easy to read. You’ve felt stupid for a good chunk of your life, and you don’t like the feeling. So you don’t read physics out of anxiety that it’s going to be over your head and make you feel stupid. Instead, you mask that by snorting that reading is for sheep and chumps, and insisting that originality, even supremely uninformed originality is better than figuring out what others are trying to explain. And while you KNOW it’s just a pretense, you just can’t help but indulge the addictive pleasures of using high-sounding words like “dimension” and “fractal” and “standing-wave” and “uncertainty principle” and “precession” and “photon”, not really caring that you don’t have a clear idea of what the words means. And you string together these words in a short paragraph and a picture, because that’s what you imagine physics SHOULD be (if you were in charge). As soon as the smallest, most basic thing gets explained to you, the urge to smother it with your kookbabble phrases and the “inspiration” to make another GIF just overwhelms you, and off you go headlong into the weeds again. And you’d love it, thank you very much, if folks would just let you indulge your little compulsive charade without calling you out. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 21:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4cih2$1ej2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727761 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Odd >>> “ >>> >>> Particles ARE quantized disturbances in fields. >>> >>> “ >>> Yes. And they help create the field below them by their emissions. >> >> “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. >> >> There you go again, using words as though you know what they mean when you >> plainly don’t. Nor are you interested in learning what they mean. You’re >> too self-absorbed to be interested in anything but your own mental >> products. >> >>> You are way too black and white. >>> You need to quit reading and start weeding out what doesn’t mesh together. >>> Start now. >>> Quit running your mouth when you obviously don’t have a coherent conceptual model. >>> >> >> Again, the conceptual model is very clear to those that know what the words >> mean. >> >> Since you believe that “conceptual model” means “can be explained in >> everyday language so that third graders can follow it”, you don’t even know >> what THAT term means. >> >> >> > > John, you’re pretty easy to read. > > You’ve felt stupid for a good chunk of your life, and you don’t like the > feeling. So you don’t read physics out of anxiety that it’s going to be > over your head and make you feel stupid. Instead, you mask that by snorting > that reading is for sheep and chumps, and insisting that originality, even > supremely uninformed originality is better than figuring out what others > are trying to explain. > > And while you KNOW it’s just a pretense, you just can’t help but indulge > the addictive pleasures of using high-sounding words like “dimension” and > “fractal” and “standing-wave” and “uncertainty principle” and “precession” > and “photon”, not really caring that you don’t have a clear idea of what > the words means. And you string together these words in a short paragraph > and a picture, because that’s what you imagine physics SHOULD be (if you > were in charge). > > As soon as the smallest, most basic thing gets explained to you, the urge > to smother it with your kookbabble phrases and the “inspiration” to make > another GIF just overwhelms you, and off you go headlong into the weeds > again. > > And you’d love it, thank you very much, if folks would just let you indulge > your little compulsive charade without calling you out. > And this is where you call me a dick for being brutally honest with you. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 15:39 -0800 |
| Subject | My (non-vocalized) transcendental meditation chant is "nonsense", not "ohm". |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.17--3.39pm.Seattle.2019> |
| In reply to | #727761 |
Some people are really into comic book, sci-fi "physics". They might not be able to read a real physics book, if they tried. Do they have a place in this world ? Apparently so. " Sustained Consumption " is the goal, not truthiness; so pick your poison, Christianity or pantheism. The narrative is: " My vice is better than yours ". My (non-vocalized) transcendental meditation chant is "nonsense", not "ohm".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 23:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: My (non-vocalized) transcendental meditation chant is "nonsense", not "ohm". |
| Message-ID | <7nmaE.20248$Dl2.10938@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #727773 |
On 2019-02-17, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote: > Some people are really into comic book, sci-fi "physics". > > They might not be able to read a real physics book, if they tried. > > Do they have a place in this world ? Apparently so. > > " Sustained Consumption " is the goal, not truthiness; > so pick your poison, Christianity or pantheism. > The narrative is: " My vice is better than yours ". > > My (non-vocalized) transcendental meditation chant is "nonsense", not "ohm". Where do you come up with these things? You should hook up with Simon Bar Sinister because both of you are miswired defects. Maybe you can loan him that topenga masturbation thing you have. It might keep him away from the little girls like Sofia. -- Ratchet Jaw The Locked and Loaded Jew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 16:29 -0800 |
| Subject | When did your obsession with octogenarians begin ? |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.17--4.29pm.Seattle.2019> |
| In reply to | #727776 |
Ratchet: > Maybe you can loan [ John Gohde a Tenga Flip Zero ]. > It might keep him away from the little girls like Sofia. I'm more worried about keeping you away from John. When did your obsession with octogenarians begin ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 00:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: When did your obsession with octogenarians begin ? |
| Message-ID | <0inaE.117590$WZ5.46271@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #727784 |
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.] On 2019-02-18, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote: > Ratchet: >> Maybe you can loan [ John Gohde a Tenga Flip Zero ]. >> It might keep him away from the little girls like Sofia. > > I'm more worried about keeping you away from John. > When did your obsession with octogenarians begin ? I wouldn't get within a mile of that toothless wonder. He's probably disease ridden. Ferals are like that. I'm done feeding the troll though. I've had my fun so it's time to move on. Speaking of trolls, where is snit these days? -- Ratchet Jaw The Locked and Loaded Jew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 17:02 -0800 |
| Subject | GallopingInsanity |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Feb.17--5.02pm.Seattle.2019> |
| In reply to | #727787 |
> where is snit these days ? Talk.Politics.Guns Groups.Google.COM/forum/#!searchin/Talk.Politics.Guns/GallopingInsanity|sort:date
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 14:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GallopingInsanity |
| Message-ID | <rizaE.174232$5j3.135156@fx26.iad> |
| In reply to | #727793 |
On 2019-02-18, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote: >> where is snit these days ? > > Talk.Politics.Guns > Groups.Google.COM/forum/#!searchin/Talk.Politics.Guns/GallopingInsanity|sort:date Thanks. So much for that group. -- Ratchet Jaw The Locked and Loaded Jew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 15:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GallopingInsanity |
| Message-ID | <gd02cpFn6ksU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #727861 |
Ratchetjaw <ratchetjaw@mail.com> wrote: > On 2019-02-18, Jeff-Relf.Me @. <Jeff-Relf.Me@> wrote: >>> where is snit these days ? >> >> Talk.Politics.Guns >> Groups.Google.COM/forum/#!searchin/Talk.Politics.Guns/GallopingInsanity|sort:date > > Thanks. > So much for that group. > > I still read and post here, too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 14:05 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <37e73bed-76c7-4cec-adb0-8f3c39358700@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727760 |
Odd “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. ” They sure do, Odd. There are smaller and smaller versions of matter and their radiations. Those smaller radiations are what YOU call fields. The photons given off by electrons are the electric field. The neutrinos given off by those same electrons are the gravitational field. The smaller-gauge HEPs given off by excited atoms are the magnetic field. Etc. You just believe that there is a ‘smallest’. There isn’t, unless we’re talking about yer brain. Har. There I go talking about nothing, again! Har
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 14:19 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <00081000-5e51-4258-bb1a-b9904847d28c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727765 |
Odd “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. ” Actually, Odd, you call EVERYTHING that’s too small to detect ‘fields’, whether radiations OR stationary. You’re calling all of Space a field, when it is actually the fluid-like MEDIUM for OUR matter and radiations, and you’re calling ITS radiations a field, also. But that’s just because you’re confused, and you’re confused because you don’t have a conceptual model- you have a hodge-podge
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 00:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4cvg0$178t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727766 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. ” > Actually, Odd, you call EVERYTHING that’s too small to detect ‘fields’, > whether radiations OR stationary. > You’re calling all of Space a field, when it is actually the fluid-like > MEDIUM for OUR matter and radiations, and you’re calling ITS radiations a field, also. John, stop layering on what you think physics words mean. Just ASK what they mean. > > But that’s just because you’re confused, and you’re confused because you > don’t have a conceptual model- you have a hodge-podge > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-17 20:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <918e7de7-80a6-46e2-b487-14fa41da966e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727789 |
Odd “John, stop layering on what you think physics words mean. Just ASK what they mean. ” If you wonder what the word ‘indefatigable’ means, here- let me use it in a sentence: Odd, you’re an indefatigable idiot. There. Now you know!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 14:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4efs5$tnf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727836 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “John, stop layering on what you think physics words mean. Just ASK what > they mean. ” See? The idea is repellent. > If you wonder what the word ‘indefatigable’ means, here- let me use it in > a sentence: Odd, you’re an indefatigable idiot. > There. Now you know!! > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 07:59 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <3a1227f9-4d47-448e-8021-ff4cfa36403d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #727864 |
Odd “The idea is repellent. ” No, just non-productive. I know exactly what fields are- you, on the other hand, believe in point particles, virtual particles, delocalization of electrons, distributed electrons and purple fairies that grant Oddwishes. Listening to you would be stupid- you’ll just talk about Higgs fairies and black hole fairies. You’re a dinosaur. They just saw a Quasar get ejected from around a Black Hole, like I said happens and like Halton Arp said happens. Quick, Odd!!! Head!!! Sand!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 18:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4ev9i$1rll$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727874 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “The idea is repellent. > ” > No, just non-productive. > I know exactly what fields are- No you don’t, John. You have your own meaning, your own concept, your own private idea if a field, which bears zero resemblance to what physicists mean by the term. This makes communication impossible because you have no shared meaning of these words with other people familiar with physics. What you say naturally then sounds like word soup. > you, on the other hand, believe in point particles, virtual particles, > delocalization of electrons, distributed electrons and purple fairies that grant Oddwishes. > Listening to you would be stupid- you’ll just talk about Higgs fairies > and black hole fairies. Ok, so you have no interest in learning what physics terms like “field” and “spin” and “fractal” and “standing wave” actually mean. Because you’d just rather use the words to SOUND cool and intellectual. Because you like your pretense exactly the way it is. Understood. > > You’re a dinosaur. > > They just saw a Quasar get ejected from around a Black Hole, like I said > happens and like Halton Arp said happens. Quick, Odd!!! Head!!! Sand!!! > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-02-18 00:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ARE ''FIELDS '' THE MOST BASIC PHYSICAL ENTITY ??... |
| Message-ID | <q4cvfv$178t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #727765 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “Above” and “below” have no meaning for fields. > ” > They sure do, Odd. > There are smaller and smaller versions of matter and their radiations. John, a field has infinite extent in all directions. There is no “smaller version” of infinite in extent in all directions. This is what I mean by you not knowing what words even mean, and why when you go off into the weeds with words you don’t know the meaning of, you are IMMEDIATELY spouting nonsense. You know, if you could sit still and just LISTEN to someone explain a concept to you without you going ADHD and reverting back to sudden left turns into the weeds, the *concept* of a field might only take 20 or 30 posts. Do you have the attention span for that? Can you LISTEN and LEARN without layering on your own ideas for that long, or is that part of the problem you live with, that you just can’t help it? > Those smaller radiations are what YOU call fields. > The photons given off by electrons are the electric field. > The neutrinos given off by those same electrons are the gravitational field. > The smaller-gauge HEPs given off by excited atoms are the magnetic field. > Etc. > You just believe that there is a ‘smallest’. > There isn’t, unless we’re talking about yer brain. > Har. > There I go talking about nothing, again! > Har > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web