Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #603052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-31 00:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-26 10:26 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 364 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 00:41 -0700
The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 02:43 -0700
The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:22 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:07 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:13 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:28 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:01 +0100
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-31 14:08 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-06 23:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-06 23:25 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 03:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 03:33 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 04:49 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Earle Jones27 <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2016-11-02 11:14 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 11:36 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 12:10 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-02 12:25 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 14:29 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:21 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:32 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 08:36 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 08:48 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-07 18:09 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-07 19:32 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:05 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-07 19:28 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 04:45 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 04:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-08 16:07 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 15:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-08 20:00 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-11-06 13:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-07 02:11 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-07 15:30 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 09:07 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-07 10:10 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 13:46 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-03 11:24 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-06 23:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-08 08:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-08 17:24 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 00:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:05 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:29 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 13:50 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 09:50 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 13:56 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 00:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 00:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 07:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 07:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 00:39 -0800
The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:14 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:19 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-10-31 11:44 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-31 14:09 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:47 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-31 11:58 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 12:25 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:57 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:34 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 18:49 -0400
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 16:33 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 19:44 -0400
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 09:39 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 09:42 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-02 17:06 -0400
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 09:00 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 07:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 12:08 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 12:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 12:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-11-08 11:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 12:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-11-10 14:21 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-10 18:42 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:52 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-11 05:25 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-12 19:49 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 04:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 05:51 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 07:12 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:01 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:31 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 11:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:35 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 06:35 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:34 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 02:27 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 06:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 06:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 07:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 16:49 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 16:47 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 09:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 11:58 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 15:00 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 15:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 09:50 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:30 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 19:02 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast sdf <sdf@sdf.sdf> - 2016-11-17 20:48 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 16:45 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:05 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 11:37 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 19:32 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 18:22 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 19:30 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:28 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 11:34 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:51 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 12:56 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 09:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 11:52 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 01:09 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 09:58 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 00:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 07:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 19:10 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:56 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 02:17 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:55 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 17:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 04:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:39 -0500
trons go keplerian; that is hwat the four quantum numbers are noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:49 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 03:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 04:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-15 10:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 12:03 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 12:17 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 13:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:40 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:33 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:22 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 19:37 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:52 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 04:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 07:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 08:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 15:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:03 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:33 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:51 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:33 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:52 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-16 08:52 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:09 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:53 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:07 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 19:52 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:28 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:02 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:46 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 17:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-19 18:19 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast "Amazing Distilled Wolverine" <lol_ima_fgt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 14:00 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:42 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:40 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-11 15:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 18:10 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 20:29 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 16:21 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:37 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:29 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-14 07:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:35 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:32 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 11:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-15 08:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:04 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:32 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:35 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-12 19:55 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 11:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-11 14:04 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 12:09 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-20 13:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 14:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 07:54 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 06:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:25 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 06:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:49 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-21 16:44 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 10:33 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 10:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 12:48 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 10:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 12:31 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 14:57 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:17 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 05:59 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 17:20 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 09:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:50 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:52 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 18:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 20:11 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 04:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:35 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 15:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-25 22:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 00:02 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-26 12:06 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 13:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 14:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 14:49 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-26 15:37 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-01 16:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 13:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-06 13:51 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 04:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 07:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 09:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 11:01 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 17:17 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-26 23:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 14:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 13:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:43 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:15 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:50 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 22:07 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:03 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:26 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:35 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:35 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:35 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:22 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:54 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 06:08 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:54 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:25 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 22:11 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:05 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:27 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:36 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:15 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:55 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 08:29 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:44 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:38 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:38 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:15 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:25 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:56 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-01 16:44 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:21 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 20:08 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:51 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 10:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:26 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 22:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-21 12:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-21 12:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 14:02 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 22:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:22 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 07:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:49 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:32 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:00 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:21 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:56 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:52 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-23 18:13 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 11:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:26 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 19:10 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 16:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:47 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 06:10 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 06:17 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 08:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 15:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-25 03:17 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:58 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:57 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 16:39 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-24 06:29 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:41 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 22:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:49 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 22:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 09:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-21 10:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 19:56 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 15:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:26 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:29 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 20:35 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-26 10:26 -0600
Page 14 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 19 Next page →
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 07:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o29ajd$hhg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #608137 |
.... ahahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHAHA... ROTFLMAO > Harlow Campbell "HVAC" <mr.hvac@gmail.com> wrote: > The <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> reber g=emc^2 wrote: Electrons can never go through space at c.Electrons can never spin slower than c.Photons are proof of this.Photons never slow down,nor do they bounce. Reality is all this comes out of three of my theories that I have merge together to help see how QM works.TreBert > Harlow Campbell wrote: Bert have you ever thought about killing yourself? > hanson wrote: <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> actually posted about this issue, that Glazier was ugly inside and out, that Bert was a loser who has lived for too long and that Glazier wanted to go back to the oven. > A couple days ago Bert even called the "Mental Health Hotline" and did "spook a nice lady" Glazier said. > This not made up stuff Cretin Glazier, the low wit bigot and hate monger posed all that... ROTFMAO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bfab932a-88e7-4d6a-9f66-8a2d50b2e259@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #608083 |
If electron did not spin at c it would not be an electron Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <o29mde$t9t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #608162 |
"reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: > If electron did not spin at c it would not be an electron but Trebert Glazier will remain a Cretin at any speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 17:17 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1d55b$16bm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606567 |
On 11/26/2016 3:56 PM, john wrote: > Michael > "Nice reach to get from "vibrations" to orbital periods. " > > The atom is a turning disc. But it's not, according to quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics as a physical model (yes, in 3D) allows calculations of literally thousands of quantitative predictions which match high-precision measurements. You say yours is a physical model, but you produce only 1 or 2 calculations which pertain to the size of ONE galaxy, but you claim also applies to all galaxies, a statement that is obviously false. > One complete turn is a cycle. > During this cycle, it precesses twice- > the edge comes past 4 times, twice > going up and twice going down. > > So, I think two vibrations would equal > an orbital period. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 23:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1d5ha$if5$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #606567 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael >"Nice reach to get from "vibrations" to orbital periods. " <snip babbling> >So, I think two vibrations would equal >an orbital period. No, John, there is no evidence any of your babble actually happens. And various laws of physics is evidence that doesn't happen. So how do we get orbital periods from this "vibrations" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 14:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1adfb19e-4543-449a-8c9b-3bb9b902bfe8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606567 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 4:56:48 PM UTC-5, john wrote: [] > > The atom is a turning disc. > One complete turn is a cycle. > During this cycle, it precesses twice- > the edge comes past 4 times, twice > going up and twice going down. Where is your reference for this? Is this "disc" solid? > > So, I think two vibrations would equal > an orbital period. Why? A cycle is defined generally as one period. And you still keep leaping from the electron is a vortex to the atom is a disc to the atom is a galaxy to the electron is fast (without context). Take some time to think about your "theory". It isn't ripe yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 13:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89843389-1db7-49f5-8f5d-25d63376ff29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #606516 |
On Saturday, November 26, 2016 at 3:02:25 AM UTC-5, john wrote: > Ed > > "When did you measure this period, John? > How did you measure it? " > > I didn't have to measure anything. > There have been enough measurements, > experiments, crash tests, etc. ten times > over to figure out matter. > Search for "attoseconds electrons", and > one of the links is > http://jaslab.ca/atto6_e.html > where they talk "electron vibration". > > The basic Bohr orbital calculates > as 150 attoseconds Finally got a reference from you. This may get interesting, to be able to talk physics, to shed light rather than heat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 09:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o1cain$1loq$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #606271 |
On 11/23/2016 5:43 PM, john wrote: > Odd > Reconcile a period of 100 attoseconds > with your quantum > "orbitals" > I answered this separately. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <birhgd-mik.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #606268 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >> >> Nov 22john >> benj >> " >>> >> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >> :) >> These guys can't decide what structure >> means. >> Mickey now says if it comes apart >> it HAS structure! >> Like clouds, Mickey? >> ------------- >> >> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >> >> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >> > HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and > name-calling. Such a sad little man. It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the word science so much. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583a2df8$0$61737$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606304 |
On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>> >>> Nov 22john >>> benj >>> " >>>> >>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>> :) >>> These guys can't decide what structure >>> means. >>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>> it HAS structure! >>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>> ------------- >>> >>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>> >>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>> >> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >> name-calling. Such a sad little man. > > It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the > word science so much. So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? Obviously you and ODD are all for letting our betters tell us what is true. So now you are pretending to be a scientist like HVAC does? Funny!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 02:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tmspgd-8gh.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #606598 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>> >>>> Nov 22john >>>> benj >>>> " >>>>> >>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>> :) >>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>> means. >>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>> it HAS structure! >>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>> ------------- >>>> >>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>> >>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>> >>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >> >> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >> word science so much. > > So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? None. Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested many times with zero positive results. It is a failed hypothesis. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-26 22:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583a4e0c$0$10192$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606622 |
On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nov 22john >>>>> benj >>>>> " >>>>>> >>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>> :) >>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>> means. >>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>> ------------- >>>>> >>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>> >>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>> >>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>> >>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>> word science so much. >> >> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? > > None. > > Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested > many times with zero positive results. > > It is a failed hypothesis. Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if you could read you could read my book and learn something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-27 04:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2i2qgd-j5i.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #606630 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>> benj >>>>>> " >>>>>>> >>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>> :) >>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>> means. >>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>> ------------- >>>>>> >>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>> >>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>> >>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>> >>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>> word science so much. >>> >>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >> >> None. >> >> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >> many times with zero positive results. >> >> It is a failed hypothesis. > > Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at > least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we censor QM too" is kook babble kook. > You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if > you could read you could read my book and learn something. If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something like psychic phenomena kook. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-28 16:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583ca119$0$51784$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606646 |
On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>> benj >>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>> :) >>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>> means. >>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>> >>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>> >>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>> word science so much. >>>> >>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>> >>> None. >>> >>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>> many times with zero positive results. >>> >>> It is a failed hypothesis. >> >> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? > > The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. > > As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we > censor QM too" is kook babble kook. > >> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >> you could read you could read my book and learn something. > > If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not > throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something > like psychic phenomena kook. Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 01:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pj2vgd-o95.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #606892 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>>> word science so much. >>>>> >>>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>>> >>>> None. >>>> >>>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>>> many times with zero positive results. >>>> >>>> It is a failed hypothesis. >>> >>> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >>> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? >> >> The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. >> >> As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we >> censor QM too" is kook babble kook. >> >>> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >>> you could read you could read my book and learn something. >> >> If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not >> throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something >> like psychic phenomena kook. > > Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob. "religious opinion"? What a babbling kook. So where is your peer reviewed positive results from a study of psychic phenomena kook? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583e02ca$0$55876$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #606973 |
On 11/28/2016 8:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>>>> word science so much. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>>>> >>>>> None. >>>>> >>>>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>>>> many times with zero positive results. >>>>> >>>>> It is a failed hypothesis. >>>> >>>> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >>>> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? >>> >>> The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. >>> >>> As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we >>> censor QM too" is kook babble kook. >>> >>>> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >>>> you could read you could read my book and learn something. >>> >>> If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not >>> throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something >>> like psychic phenomena kook. >> >> Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob. > > "religious opinion"? > > What a babbling kook. > > So where is your peer reviewed positive results from a study of > psychic phenomena kook? There is well over a century of such results, nutjob. You fundies are so blind you can't see any of it. If I rubbed your nose in it, you'd still say all you smell is roses. You are just a total waste of time. Your opinion is as meaningless as HVAC's
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 23:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cuf1hd-ile.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #607082 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 11/28/2016 8:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>>>>> word science so much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>>>>> >>>>>> None. >>>>>> >>>>>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>>>>> many times with zero positive results. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a failed hypothesis. >>>>> >>>>> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >>>>> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? >>>> >>>> The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. >>>> >>>> As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we >>>> censor QM too" is kook babble kook. >>>> >>>>> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >>>>> you could read you could read my book and learn something. >>>> >>>> If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not >>>> throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something >>>> like psychic phenomena kook. >>> >>> Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob. >> >> "religious opinion"? >> >> What a babbling kook. >> >> So where is your peer reviewed positive results from a study of >> psychic phenomena kook? > > There is well over a century of such results, Yet you can not point to one peer reviewed study with positive results kook. <snip usual ranting diatribe> -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 19:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583e19fa$0$40798$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #607120 |
On 11/29/2016 6:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 11/28/2016 8:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>>>>>> word science so much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> None. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>>>>>> many times with zero positive results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a failed hypothesis. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >>>>>> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? >>>>> >>>>> The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. >>>>> >>>>> As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we >>>>> censor QM too" is kook babble kook. >>>>> >>>>>> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >>>>>> you could read you could read my book and learn something. >>>>> >>>>> If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not >>>>> throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something >>>>> like psychic phenomena kook. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob. >>> >>> "religious opinion"? >>> >>> What a babbling kook. >>> >>> So where is your peer reviewed positive results from a study of >>> psychic phenomena kook? >> >> There is well over a century of such results, > > Yet you can not point to one peer reviewed study with positive results kook. > > <snip usual ranting diatribe> > > Babbling waste of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18m1hd-s9f.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #607137 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 11/29/2016 6:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 11/28/2016 8:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>>>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>>>>>>> word science so much. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>>>>>>> many times with zero positive results. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a failed hypothesis. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >>>>>>> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? >>>>>> >>>>>> The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. >>>>>> >>>>>> As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we >>>>>> censor QM too" is kook babble kook. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >>>>>>> you could read you could read my book and learn something. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not >>>>>> throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something >>>>>> like psychic phenomena kook. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob. >>>> >>>> "religious opinion"? >>>> >>>> What a babbling kook. >>>> >>>> So where is your peer reviewed positive results from a study of >>>> psychic phenomena kook? >>> >>> There is well over a century of such results, >> >> Yet you can not point to one peer reviewed study with positive results kook. >> >> <snip usual ranting diatribe> >> >> > Babbling waste of time. Yes babbling kooks like you that claim there is a wealth sof support for their kook beliefs yet are never able to produce it are a waste of time. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <583e3c5a$0$10193$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #607156 |
On 11/29/2016 8:22 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 11/29/2016 6:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 11/28/2016 8:35 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/26/2016 11:03 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/26/2016 9:23 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 8:15 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/23/2016 7:14 AM, HVAC wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nov 22john >>>>>>>>>>>>> benj >>>>>>>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> John is right. You ARE a zombie. " >>>>>>>>>>>>> :) >>>>>>>>>>>>> These guys can't decide what structure >>>>>>>>>>>>> means. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mickey now says if it comes apart >>>>>>>>>>>>> it HAS structure! >>>>>>>>>>>>> Like clouds, Mickey? >>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> BJ and John are the exact opposite of science. Ghosts, esp, moonmen, these are their areas of 'expertise'. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No offense tho guys. Fist bump? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> HARDBLOW, the loser, knows no science. Just lies, fantasies and >>>>>>>>>>>> name-calling. Such a sad little man. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is halarious that someone that believes in psychic phenomena uses the >>>>>>>>>>> word science so much. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So what subject do you think should be censored out of science? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> None. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Psychic phenomena is not "censored out of science", it has been tested >>>>>>>>> many times with zero positive results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a failed hypothesis. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is YOU who wants to censor it out of science. Data is extensive and at >>>>>>>> least as good as that for QM. Shall we censor QM too because I say so? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The very phrase "censor it out of science" is kook babble kook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As nothing has been "censored out of science", the phrase "Shall we >>>>>>> censor QM too" is kook babble kook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You have ZERO idea what the hell science is or how it works. You know if >>>>>>>> you could read you could read my book and learn something. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you had a clue what the word "science" actually meant, you would not >>>>>>> throw it around so glibly particularly when talking about something >>>>>>> like psychic phenomena kook. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your religious opinion. Science isn't religion, nutjob. >>>>> >>>>> "religious opinion"? >>>>> >>>>> What a babbling kook. >>>>> >>>>> So where is your peer reviewed positive results from a study of >>>>> psychic phenomena kook? >>>> >>>> There is well over a century of such results, >>> >>> Yet you can not point to one peer reviewed study with positive results kook. >>> >>> <snip usual ranting diatribe> >>> >>> >> Babbling waste of time. > > Yes babbling kooks like you that claim there is a wealth sof support > for their kook beliefs yet are never able to produce it are a waste > of time. > > stalker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web