Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #697062 > unrolled thread
| Started by | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-08-08 05:44 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 248 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 02:13 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 00:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sd> - 2018-08-05 12:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-08-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:06 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:10 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:33 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:07 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 08:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:11 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 08:42 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-08 11:49 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:07 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:02 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 12:51 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:06 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:50 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 10:32 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:11 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:43 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 08:27 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 14:13 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 08:12 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:19 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tson Ylor <uo@srsysts.sg> - 2018-08-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:32 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hp> - 2018-08-06 18:05 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:15 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 09:21 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Volney <volney@volney.invalid> - 2018-08-07 08:36 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 12:17 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:57 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 13:31 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 20:40 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 16:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 04:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:43 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:17 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:25 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:42 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:45 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:52 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 04:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:13 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 15:17 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 11:59 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 15:31 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:47 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:01 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:11 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:22 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:29 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:34 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:48 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-06 21:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 18:01 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:46 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 12:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:00 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:53 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 09:57 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:23 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 18:00 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 22:22 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 17:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 15:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:53 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-09 11:49 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 18:27 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 22:47 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 19:11 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 12:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 16:43 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 23:05 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 03:12 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 03:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-11 13:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 10:25 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 06:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-10 09:36 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 01:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:45 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:48 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-07 17:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 21:29 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 09:46 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:44 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:41 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-06 19:22 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:14 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 18:55 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:54 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 22:17 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-05 18:41 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 08:59 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:24 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 11:20 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 06:40 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:27 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-05 22:50 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 13:51 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 13:08 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-05 12:23 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 19:31 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-05 13:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-07 11:40 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 04:53 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-07 10:02 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-07 08:55 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 13:05 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-07 11:24 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 16:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 20:04 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 09:05 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-08 17:14 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 10:34 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 07:45 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 11:18 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:16 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 09:15 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 19:57 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-08-09 11:48 +1000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 11:02 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-08 11:08 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 13:23 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-08-08 20:26 +0200
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 14:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 20:06 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-09 10:15 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:48 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-11 23:37 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:31 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenvhw.ho> - 2018-08-12 11:34 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-12 10:09 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-12 21:29 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Lovu Biftek <ufeli@fupuks.cl> - 2018-08-13 10:53 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 11:41 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-08-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 17:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 14:32 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 13:22 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 18:59 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:19 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 06:33 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:33 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 08:53 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:00 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 09:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:30 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 14:13 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:43 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 13:37 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 10:52 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 11:17 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 12:09 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:58 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:19 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 22:33 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:11 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 07:22 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:56 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 11:03 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 18:32 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 14:21 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 17:35 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:54 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 19:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-19 22:20 -0500
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:29 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:31 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:44 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 21:57 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:02 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:21 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:03 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:05 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:39 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:22 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:30 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 00:15 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 22:01 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:01 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 12:39 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 18:35 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:12 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 19:44 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 20:15 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 05:43 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:23 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-20 14:25 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 15:38 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 16:06 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-19 02:38 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 20:54 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 15:24 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 20:01 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 23:55 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 10:58 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 15:26 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:36 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 17:53 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 12:21 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 21:49 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-09 19:28 -0400
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 15:08 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-10 07:01 -0700
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> - 2018-08-08 11:12 +0000
Re: Rub Odd's nose in it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 05:44 -0700
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 22:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pkb300$1guj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697363 |
On 8/6/2018 8:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom
>> “The discovery of 0 as a valid number by the ancients is now an essential ”
>> Is one of the main reasons your science is so fucked right now.
>> No such thing as nothing. Space is FULL of energy at a smaller gauge. If
>> there were ANY true vacuum anywhere, the pressure of Space would smack it
>> shut like a nuclear bomb.
>> You guys are SO lost.
>> Poor little bean counters that can’t figure out what a bean plant is. :(
>>
>
> John sez zero is not a number.
>
oh no! We is DOOMED ! actually the ancients forgot 0 for a long time,
then started using it to indicate nothing (left over from accounting )
$1.00 is totally centsless!
if you have nothing, that's something.
space is *not* full of energy, that is only theoretical, and you cannot
extract any energy out of it.
wiki says
"According to quantum field theory, the universe *can be thought of* not
as isolated particles but continuous fluctuating fields:.. "
"can be thought of" is not "is" Theory, but not real.
ZPE is fake news.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 18:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <h6qdnR6bduCtFvrGnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #697105 |
On 8/5/18 11:17 AM, benj wrote: > On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>> speed. >>> [... nonsense] >> >> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can >> and do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" >> means, and b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical >> electrodynamics. >> >> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore >> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the >> two charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and >> that destroys what you think is an argument. >> >> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, >> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay >> of L/c. > > So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space > and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down > these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is > nonsense. The nonsense is YOURS, not mine. That is NOT my argument. Hint: charge cannot be "created". My point is that your original discussion violated the conservation of charge, and is therefore useless. Fix that, and your "argument" disappears. That is, create a +/- pair of charges at one point, and then separate them -- as they separate each one continually and continuously "feels" the force from the other. Work out the details using the L-W potential and it is quite clear that the value of the field at one charge's location depends on the RETARDED position of the other (here "retarded" means the position a time L/c before the time of the measurement [#]). [#] One must use a single inertial frame for all measurements and the time coordinate. > Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates > a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously > sensed by a test charge somewhere. Hmmmm. That's basically what I said using different words AND SPEAKING LOOSELY. It is not the "dipole field" that is propagating, but rather changes to the field in the form of an outward-expanding dipole. The field itself has a value everywhere and everywhen throughout the universe; it may well have a value indistinguishable from 0 in many/most places. This is in classical electrodynamics. It is hopeless to attempt a discussion in the context of QED around here. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 08:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8840b604-f051-4940-a714-e546c976787d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697152 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:41:43 AM UTC+3, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/5/18 11:17 AM, benj wrote: > > On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: > >>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. > >>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that > >>> speed. > >>> [... nonsense] > >> > >> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can > >> and do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" > >> means, and b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical > >> electrodynamics. > >> > >> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore > >> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the > >> two charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and > >> that destroys what you think is an argument. > >> > >> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, > >> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay > >> of L/c. > > > > So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space > > and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down > > these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is > > nonsense. > > The nonsense is YOURS, not mine. That is NOT my argument. > > Hint: charge cannot be "created". > > My point is that your original discussion violated the conservation of > charge, and is therefore useless. Fix that, and your "argument" > disappears. That is, create a +/- pair of charges at one point, and then > separate them -- as they separate each one continually and continuously > "feels" the force from the other. Work out the details using the L-W > potential and it is quite clear that the value of the field at one > charge's location depends on the RETARDED position of the other (here > "retarded" means the position a time L/c before the time of the > measurement [#]). > > [#] One must use a single inertial frame for all > measurements and the time coordinate. > > > Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates > > a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously > > sensed by a test charge somewhere. > > Hmmmm. That's basically what I said using different words AND SPEAKING > LOOSELY. It is not the "dipole field" that is propagating, but rather > changes to the field in the form of an outward-expanding dipole. The > field itself has a value everywhere and everywhen throughout the > universe; it may well have a value indistinguishable from 0 in many/most > places. > > This is in classical electrodynamics. It is hopeless to > attempt a discussion in the context of QED around here. > > Tom Roberts ========================== fields exist only were **mass exist * just as simple as that =========================================== mass * is the creator of all forces including gravity !! ========================================== new copyright Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 16:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk9snb$1n38$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697247 |
<poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:41:43 AM UTC+3, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/5/18 11:17 AM, benj wrote: >>> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>>>> speed. >>>>> [... nonsense] >>>> >>>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can >>>> and do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" >>>> means, and b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical >>>> electrodynamics. >>>> >>>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore >>>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the >>>> two charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and >>>> that destroys what you think is an argument. >>>> >>>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, >>>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay >>>> of L/c. >>> >>> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space >>> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down >>> these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is >>> nonsense. >> >> The nonsense is YOURS, not mine. That is NOT my argument. >> >> Hint: charge cannot be "created". >> >> My point is that your original discussion violated the conservation of >> charge, and is therefore useless. Fix that, and your "argument" >> disappears. That is, create a +/- pair of charges at one point, and then >> separate them -- as they separate each one continually and continuously >> "feels" the force from the other. Work out the details using the L-W >> potential and it is quite clear that the value of the field at one >> charge's location depends on the RETARDED position of the other (here >> "retarded" means the position a time L/c before the time of the >> measurement [#]). >> >> [#] One must use a single inertial frame for all >> measurements and the time coordinate. >> >>> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates >>> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously >>> sensed by a test charge somewhere. >> >> Hmmmm. That's basically what I said using different words AND SPEAKING >> LOOSELY. It is not the "dipole field" that is propagating, but rather >> changes to the field in the form of an outward-expanding dipole. The >> field itself has a value everywhere and everywhen throughout the >> universe; it may well have a value indistinguishable from 0 in many/most >> places. >> >> This is in classical electrodynamics. It is hopeless to >> attempt a discussion in the context of QED around here. >> >> Tom Roberts > ========================== > fields exist only were **mass exist * > just as simple as that Even if that mass is a million miles away. > =========================================== > mass * is the creator of all forces > including gravity !! > ========================================== > new copyright > Y.Porat > ============================ > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 11:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36298b97-b031-4fa4-a9ba-d6ebcbc91492@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697256 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:24:16 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <poraty149@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 2:41:43 AM UTC+3, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 8/5/18 11:17 AM, benj wrote: > >>> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: > >>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. > >>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that > >>>>> speed. > >>>>> [... nonsense] > >>>> > >>>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can > >>>> and do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" > >>>> means, and b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical > >>>> electrodynamics. > >>>> > >>>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore > >>>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the > >>>> two charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and > >>>> that destroys what you think is an argument. > >>>> > >>>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, > >>>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay > >>>> of L/c. > >>> > >>> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space > >>> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down > >>> these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is > >>> nonsense. > >> > >> The nonsense is YOURS, not mine. That is NOT my argument. > >> > >> Hint: charge cannot be "created". > >> > >> My point is that your original discussion violated the conservation of > >> charge, and is therefore useless. Fix that, and your "argument" > >> disappears. That is, create a +/- pair of charges at one point, and then > >> separate them -- as they separate each one continually and continuously > >> "feels" the force from the other. Work out the details using the L-W > >> potential and it is quite clear that the value of the field at one > >> charge's location depends on the RETARDED position of the other (here > >> "retarded" means the position a time L/c before the time of the > >> measurement [#]). > >> > >> [#] One must use a single inertial frame for all > >> measurements and the time coordinate. > >> > >>> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates > >>> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously > >>> sensed by a test charge somewhere. > >> > >> Hmmmm. That's basically what I said using different words AND SPEAKING > >> LOOSELY. It is not the "dipole field" that is propagating, but rather > >> changes to the field in the form of an outward-expanding dipole. The > >> field itself has a value everywhere and everywhen throughout the > >> universe; it may well have a value indistinguishable from 0 in many/most > >> places. > >> > >> This is in classical electrodynamics. It is hopeless to > >> attempt a discussion in the context of QED around here. > >> > >> Tom Roberts > > ========================== > > fields exist only were **mass exist * > > just as simple as that > > Even if that mass is a million miles away. ================== good question ! yet the residuals of mass for instance photons ..... can travel ..may be you say how long ?? 2 have you a better suggestion ?? may be ''curves space'' (:-)as a creator of forces ?? -- Y.Porat ============================ > > =========================================== > > mass * is the creator of all forces > > including gravity !! > > ========================================== > > new copyright > > Y.Porat > > ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 06:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8e289fb-34f4-4e6a-8d6c-09adf3e930c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697105 |
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 12:17:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: > >> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. > >> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that > >> speed. > >> [... nonsense] > > > > He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and > > do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and > > b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical > > electrodynamics. > > > > Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore > > useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two > > charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that > > destroys what you think is an argument. > > > > But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, > > locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of > > L/c. > > > > Tom Roberts > > So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space > and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down > these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is > nonsense. > > Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates > a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously > sensed by a test charge somewhere. benj, Which is EXACTLY what Odd was describing, which is exactly what happens. Stop arguing just for argument's sake. Good grief. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk9ls5$1a9c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697223 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 12:17:22 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 8/5/2018 9:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>>> speed. >>>> [... nonsense] >>> >>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and >>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and >>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical >>> electrodynamics. >>> >>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore >>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two >>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that >>> destroys what you think is an argument. >>> >>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, >>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of >>> L/c. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> So your argument is that all fields already exist throughout all space >> and then when a charge is created only the disturbances travel down >> these already existing fields at the speed of c? You know that is >> nonsense. >> >> Even if you introduce two charges and separate them, this still creates >> a dipole field traveling away at c. It will not be instantaneously >> sensed by a test charge somewhere. > > benj, > Which is EXACTLY what Odd was describing, which is exactly what happens. > Stop arguing just for argument's sake. > > Good grief. > Ed > Ben just likes to stir the pot when people like John are told they don’t know what they’re talking about. He will root for the underdog even if that entails saying things he KNOWS are not so. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 22:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pk8ght$1cmp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697089 |
On 8/5/2018 8:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >> speed. >> [... nonsense] > > He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and > do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and > b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical > electrodynamics. > > Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore > useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two > charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that > destroys what you think is an argument. > > But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, > locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of > L/c. > > Tom Roberts E field on a Cat; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 13:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pka1rh$rl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697192 |
On 8/5/2018 11:50 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 8/5/2018 8:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>> speed. >>> [... nonsense] >> >> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and >> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and >> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical >> electrodynamics. >> >> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore >> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two >> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that >> destroys what you think is an argument. >> >> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, >> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of >> L/c. >> >> Tom Roberts > > > E field on a Cat; > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg > Save the Cat! https://www.walmart.com/ip/Static-Guard-Spray-5-5-Ounces/21092566
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pka2r5$261$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697275 |
On 8/6/2018 12:51 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/5/2018 11:50 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 8/5/2018 8:27 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 8/5/18 1:13 AM, benj wrote: >>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>>> speed. >>>> [... nonsense] >>> >>> He is correct: fields do not "propagate", but changes in fields can and >>> do. To see this, all one has to do is examine a) what "field" means, and >>> b) the form of the Lienard-Wiechert potentials of classical >>> electrodynamics. >>> >>> Your discussion violates basic conservation laws and is therefore >>> useless. Modifying it to obey the conservation of charge forces the two >>> charges to be introduced at the same point and then separated, and that >>> destroys what you think is an argument. >>> >>> But it is true that if you have a charge present, and then wiggle it, >>> locations a distance L away won't observe the wiggling until a delay of >>> L/c. >>> >>> Tom Roberts >> >> >> E field on a Cat; >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg >> >> > Save the Cat! > > https://www.walmart.com/ip/Static-Guard-Spray-5-5-Ounces/21092566 Great find benj! I got a few cans and I'm trying to spray the cats in the neighborhood before they run into a static charged E field.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98bfcc91-ab84-4d92-8497-6051f16de2b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697062 |
On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:13:55 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. > (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed. > > So let's do an experiment. Start with an empty region of space with no > electric fields or forces in it. > > Now suddenly introduce an electron and a positive "test charge" to > measure the field produced by the electron. > > So at the instant the two charges are introduced what do they > experience? Do they experience each other's force fields or not? > > The answer is clear. They do not. For if they did, if say the electric > fields appeared though space simultaneously, we would have "action at a > distance" and the method could be used for faster than light signalling > which would violate relativity. > > Hence there MUST be a delay caused by a propagation time which can be no > shorter than that created by propagation at the speed of light. > > It's as simple as that. Now how do you propose to "introduce" the charged particles into a location in space without dragging them there from somewhere else, and their fields along with them? Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 19:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pk7j9t$15e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697123 |
Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:13:55 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: >> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed. >> >> So let's do an experiment. Start with an empty region of space with no >> electric fields or forces in it. >> >> Now suddenly introduce an electron and a positive "test charge" to >> measure the field produced by the electron. >> >> So at the instant the two charges are introduced what do they >> experience? Do they experience each other's force fields or not? >> >> The answer is clear. They do not. For if they did, if say the electric >> fields appeared though space simultaneously, we would have "action at a >> distance" and the method could be used for faster than light signalling >> which would violate relativity. >> >> Hence there MUST be a delay caused by a propagation time which can be no >> shorter than that created by propagation at the speed of light. >> >> It's as simple as that. > > > Now how do you propose to "introduce" the charged particles into a > location in space without dragging them there from somewhere else, and > their fields along with them? > > Double-A > > Well you could do pair production, with a gamma passing nearby a charged nucleus. Oh, photon is a an electromagnetic field quantum. And there’s an existing electric field due to the nucleus. Oh well. :) -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 13:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a66bdb1d-4375-4707-9f74-cfee1489091b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697126 |
On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 12:31:15 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 11:13:55 PM UTC-7, benj wrote: > >> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. > >> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed. > >> > >> So let's do an experiment. Start with an empty region of space with no > >> electric fields or forces in it. > >> > >> Now suddenly introduce an electron and a positive "test charge" to > >> measure the field produced by the electron. > >> > >> So at the instant the two charges are introduced what do they > >> experience? Do they experience each other's force fields or not? > >> > >> The answer is clear. They do not. For if they did, if say the electric > >> fields appeared though space simultaneously, we would have "action at a > >> distance" and the method could be used for faster than light signalling > >> which would violate relativity. > >> > >> Hence there MUST be a delay caused by a propagation time which can be no > >> shorter than that created by propagation at the speed of light. > >> > >> It's as simple as that. > > > > > > Now how do you propose to "introduce" the charged particles into a > > location in space without dragging them there from somewhere else, and > > their fields along with them? > > > > Double-A > > > > > > Well you could do pair production, with a gamma passing nearby a charged > nucleus. Oh, photon is a an electromagnetic field quantum. And there’s an > existing electric field due to the nucleus. > > Oh well. :) > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables And pair production could not instantaneously produce two oppositely charged particles at separate locations. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 11:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fssbkdFl26kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #697062 |
On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote: > Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. > (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed. > What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 01:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkatr9$1a7p$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697361 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: > On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote: >> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that speed. >> > > What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? > > Sylvia. > Well maybe one of Ben’s books can explain that. We shall see. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 04:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkbmlu$d5l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697361 |
On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote: >> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >> speed. >> > > What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? > > Sylvia. Are you talking mathematics or physics? Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply zero?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pkbqn1$fl8$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697404 |
benj wrote: > On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote: >>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>> speed. >> >> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia. > > Are you talking mathematics or physics? > Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges > and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but > actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose > value is simply zero? So you don't know that field induction is recursive redundant, mutual and reciprocal. Aan _almost half-engineer_ in computer science, I guess?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 08:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pkc8bu$1bb8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697411 |
On 8/7/2018 5:02 AM, Owen Scharff wrote: > benj wrote: > >> On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote: >>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>>> speed. >>> >>> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia. >> >> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges >> and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but >> actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose >> value is simply zero? > > So you don't know that field induction is recursive redundant, mutual and > reciprocal. Aan _almost half-engineer_ in computer science, I guess? > that is how the Army gets new people in, field induction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 13:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkcjh1$1vnf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697425 |
On 8/7/2018 9:55 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 8/7/2018 5:02 AM, Owen Scharff wrote: >> benj wrote: >> >>> On 8/6/2018 9:40 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 5/08/2018 4:13 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> Odd Boinker says that electric fields do not travel that the speed c. >>>>> (the speed of light) He says only field disturbances travel at that >>>>> speed. >>>> >>>> What does it even mean to talk about the motion of a field? Sylvia. >>> >>> Are you talking mathematics or physics? >>> Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges >>> and hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but >>> actually is filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose >>> value is simply zero? >> >> So you don't know that field induction is recursive redundant, mutual and >> reciprocal. Aan _almost half-engineer_ in computer science, I guess? >> > > that is how the Army gets new people in, field induction. > <snort> Hey how come this post of Sylvia's didn't appear on my server yet? Wait a minute, Sylvia, if fields can be "induced" that implies they are created rather than Odd's theory that space is always filled with immovable fields of zero magnitude that suddenly get modulated. And it is understood by real physicists and engineers that fields are defined starting in a reciprocal manner but that the final field is determined by an abstract fantasy limiting process eliminating the reciprocity. Right? (See Jackson) My question about mathematics or physics was highly relevant. I take it you are one of those minority females studying IT hoping to graduate and try to compete with men one day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7cudnSH91s0jWvTGnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #697404 |
On 8/7/18 3:53 AM, benj wrote: > Are you talking mathematics or physics? Both -- the mathematical structure of current physical theories and models. > Do you agree that agree with Odd that empty space containing no charges and > hence produces no forces on test charges is not devoid of fields but actually is > filled with an electric (an other types) of fields whose value is simply zero? Yes. Because if you believe Maxwell's equations apply, or if you believe that QED applies, then you are FORCED to conclude there is a corresponding electromagnetic field everywhere, including regions in which it is zero (which really never happens). As I said before, this is INHERENT in what "field" means. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web