Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #700215 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alal65536@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-28 02:09 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 135 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 02:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 02:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 04:04 -0700
The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 05:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:55 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-08-28 10:25 -0700
Re:The Quark Religion Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:36 +0200
Re:The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:11 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-28 11:07 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 03:42 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-29 09:29 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 07:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-29 10:18 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 00:36 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 03:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:12 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:26 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 13:40 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 06:55 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 14:58 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-28 08:35 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 14:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 15:16 -0700
The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 15:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 16:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 16:15 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-29 17:54 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-29 22:46 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:05 -0700
The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 02:13 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 15:29 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 08:35 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 16:18 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 01:12 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 02:05 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 02:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 06:20 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-30 14:45 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 16:37 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 20:05 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 20:12 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 21:58 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 23:27 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-30 23:18 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 23:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 00:31 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 00:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 04:40 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 17:54 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 23:02 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 23:32 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 02:38 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-08-31 19:46 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-01 16:39 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 02:29 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-01 19:36 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 03:31 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 09:21 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-01 16:25 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 16:37 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 10:56 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 02:11 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 16:57 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 04:14 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-02 12:25 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:42 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:40 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:36 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:14 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 02:19 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 10:19 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-02 19:54 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 06:49 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:44 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:51 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 13:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 14:18 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 08:46 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 15:50 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 09:11 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:23 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 11:55 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 09:59 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:09 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 18:02 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-04 12:09 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:24 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 05:41 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 06:29 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 12:47 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-04 12:57 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 15:07 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:02 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 00:33 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 17:59 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:04 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 07:00 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 10:28 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:17 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 19:48 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 15:51 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 17:30 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 18:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:15 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 20:53 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 21:00 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-06 08:21 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 10:38 -0400
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 16:52 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 12:39 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:44 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 17:13 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-05 09:16 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-05 16:32 +0000
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-06 08:23 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-05 20:23 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-05 08:33 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 16:52 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 10:56 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-07 11:17 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 03:04 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:41 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-09-03 11:56 +1000
Re: The Quark Religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-02 23:16 -0500
Re: The Quark Religion mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 11:06 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-03 17:59 -0700
Re: The Quark Religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmhk3p$f9i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700884 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote to Sylvia Else: "I'm right Bert" about which > Glazier's ex-tutor Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: "Glazier, do not post in a science newsgroup." "Glazier, quit posting __ your Gutter Science__." "Glazier, exit USENET. -- IOW Glazier, beat it!." > "reber, take your 'you know it all thinking' to your grave" . "reber, your horseshit gets old. Say hi to Allah for me.: "reber, you don't believe in science." > "Glazier, your brain is entangled with a used garbage can." "Glazier, your science is far worse than the man's on the street." "Glazier, your postings are old man's garbage." > Glazier's neo-tutor Sam Wormley <olli.dp3@gmail.com> wrote: "Herb you are Fucking pathetic. Herb, you have spun a few too many times and are now in a fucking stupor. Fits your theory of spin is in--sane,. & is part of your dead brain theory, eh Herb. Oh Ya!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 08:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv37ijF41o9U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700884 |
On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not >>>>> science/physics. >>>> >>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they >>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from quarks? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons protons >>> differ from quarks >>> >>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head >>> while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? >> >> That doesn't say much. >> >> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the >> term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An >> electron is a theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, >> experimental verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible >> in the case of the electron, since particle accelerators are not >> required. >> >> Sylvia. > > Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and that we > see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the picture right and > you will know I'm right Bert > That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our everyday experience of electricity points to the existence of electrons. People just take it as read. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8127f943-5b3f-4c41-80df-c9534f8d5946@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700900 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > > On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not > >>>>> science/physics. > >>>> > >>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they > >>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from quarks? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons protons > >>> differ from quarks > >>> > >>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head > >>> while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? > >> > >> That doesn't say much. > >> > >> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the > >> term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An > >> electron is a theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, > >> experimental verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible > >> in the case of the electron, since particle accelerators are not > >> required. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and that we > > see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the picture right and > > you will know I'm right Bert > > > > That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our everyday > experience of electricity points to the existence of electrons. People > just take it as read. > > Sylvia. Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen cathode ray tubes?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 09:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv3917F4d81U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700902 |
On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not >>>>>>> science/physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they >>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from quarks? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons protons >>>>> differ from quarks >>>>> >>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head >>>>> while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? >>>> >>>> That doesn't say much. >>>> >>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the >>>> term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An >>>> electron is a theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, >>>> experimental verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible >>>> in the case of the electron, since particle accelerators are not >>>> required. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and that we >>> see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the picture right and >>> you will know I'm right Bert >>> >> >> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our everyday >> experience of electricity points to the existence of electrons. People >> just take it as read. >> >> Sylvia. > > Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen cathode ray tubes? > And again. Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, which is the first step. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 17:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7024c860-7c44-43d8-ace5-97a4b66e86e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700907 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 9:11:40 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > >>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not > >>>>>>> science/physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they > >>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from quarks? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons protons > >>>>> differ from quarks > >>>>> > >>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your head > >>>>> while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? > >>>> > >>>> That doesn't say much. > >>>> > >>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've heard the > >>>> term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a delusion. An > >>>> electron is a theory in physics as much as is a quark. At most, > >>>> experimental verifications of the theory are a bit more accessible > >>>> in the case of the electron, since particle accelerators are not > >>>> required. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and that we > >>> see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the picture right and > >>> you will know I'm right Bert > >>> > >> > >> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our everyday > >> experience of electricity points to the existence of electrons. People > >> just take it as read. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen cathode ray tubes? > > > > And again. > > Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. Of course they do. > > It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, which is > the first step. Thermionic emissions (heating a filament to drive out electrons) used in early valves show the existence of a negative charge which also have mass, and that we call space charge comprised of individual electrons. The size of an electron is found out by various experiments - such as relating to electrolysis and the controversial Millikan oil-drop experment. Some parts of those experiments and their analysis, relating to finding the value of Avogadro's Number, say, may well be theoretical or unconvincing. But the e/m ratio is purely found by experiments done by J J Thomson in the 19th century. If the question is, can the individual electron be smaller and larger than the value it is found to be as per the texts, then yes this is an open question. But there is no question that in CRTS streams of electrons go across the electrodes. Whether they are all the same size, or not, may well be a good question. In other words, there could be big electrons, or small electrons. Following from that, there could be small atoms, or big atoms for any element, all having the same structure. There is no scientific reason to hold that all atoms/subatoms must have the same size or charge. We can only deal with the average size. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 11:55 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv3ik2F645uU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700912 |
On 3/09/2018 10:23 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 9:11:40 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else > wrote: >> On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not >>>>>>>>> science/physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they >>>>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from >>>>>>>> quarks? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons >>>>>>> protons differ from quarks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your >>>>>>> head while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? >>>>>> >>>>>> That doesn't say much. >>>>>> >>>>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've >>>>>> heard the term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a >>>>>> delusion. An electron is a theory in physics as much as is >>>>>> a quark. At most, experimental verifications of the theory >>>>>> are a bit more accessible in the case of the electron, >>>>>> since particle accelerators are not required. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and >>>>> that we see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the >>>>> picture right and you will know I'm right Bert >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our >>>> everyday experience of electricity points to the existence of >>>> electrons. People just take it as read. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen >>> cathode ray tubes? >>> >> >> And again. >> >> Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. > > Of course they do. >> >> It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, >> which is the first step. > > Thermionic emissions (heating a filament to drive out electrons) used > in early valves show the existence of a negative charge which also > have mass, and that we call space charge comprised of individual > electrons. > > The size of an electron is found out by various experiments - such as > relating to electrolysis and the controversial Millikan oil-drop > experment. Some parts of those experiments and their analysis, > relating to finding the value of Avogadro's Number, say, may well be > theoretical or unconvincing. But the e/m ratio is purely found by > experiments done by J J Thomson in the 19th century. Ok, so you finally found the relevant experiments. I wonder why you didn't mention them before. Now go back up the thread and see how this fits into the discussion. The discussion was not about whether electrons exist. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 09:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pmjeot$3h6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700928 |
On 9/2/2018 9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/09/2018 10:23 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 9:11:40 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else >> wrote: >>> On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia >>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they >>>>>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from >>>>>>>>> quarks? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons >>>>>>>> protons differ from quarks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your >>>>>>>> head while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That doesn't say much. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've >>>>>>> heard the term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a >>>>>>> delusion. An electron is a theory in physics as much as is >>>>>>> a quark. At most, experimental verifications of the theory >>>>>>> are a bit more accessible in the case of the electron, >>>>>>> since particle accelerators are not required. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and >>>>>> that we see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the >>>>>> picture right and you will know I'm right Bert >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our >>>>> everyday experience of electricity points to the existence of >>>>> electrons. People just take it as read. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen >>>> cathode ray tubes? >>>> >>> >>> And again. >>> >>> Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. >> >> Of course they do. >>> >>> It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, >>> which is the first step. >> >> Thermionic emissions (heating a filament to drive out electrons) used >> in early valves show the existence of a negative charge which also >> have mass, and that we call space charge comprised of individual >> electrons. >> >> The size of an electron is found out by various experiments - such as >> relating to electrolysis and the controversial Millikan oil-drop >> experment. Some parts of those experiments and their analysis, >> relating to finding the value of Avogadro's Number, say, may well be >> theoretical or unconvincing. But the e/m ratio is purely found by >> experiments done by J J Thomson in the 19th century. > > Ok, so you finally found the relevant experiments. I wonder why you > didn't mention them before. > > Now go back up the thread and see how this fits into the discussion. The > discussion was not about whether electrons exist. > > Sylvia. Of course electrons exist even though they have zero size. This is an article of faith. Electrons have no size but do have mass. So no size is ever needed for mass. Odd's favorite textbooks prove all this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 11:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f63fe2a-e273-4f37-ba20-fabb277c56e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700961 |
On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 7:00:02 AM UTC-7, benj wrote: > On 9/2/2018 9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 3/09/2018 10:23 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 9:11:40 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else > >> wrote: > >>> On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia > >>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, > >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not science/physics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they > >>>>>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from > >>>>>>>>> quarks? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons > >>>>>>>> protons differ from quarks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your > >>>>>>>> head while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That doesn't say much. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've > >>>>>>> heard the term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a > >>>>>>> delusion. An electron is a theory in physics as much as is > >>>>>>> a quark. At most, experimental verifications of the theory > >>>>>>> are a bit more accessible in the case of the electron, > >>>>>>> since particle accelerators are not required. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and > >>>>>> that we see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the > >>>>>> picture right and you will know I'm right Bert > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our > >>>>> everyday experience of electricity points to the existence of > >>>>> electrons. People just take it as read. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen > >>>> cathode ray tubes? > >>>> > >>> > >>> And again. > >>> > >>> Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. > >> > >> Of course they do. > >>> > >>> It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, > >>> which is the first step. > >> > >> Thermionic emissions (heating a filament to drive out electrons) used > >> in early valves show the existence of a negative charge which also > >> have mass, and that we call space charge comprised of individual > >> electrons. > >> > >> The size of an electron is found out by various experiments - such as > >> relating to electrolysis and the controversial Millikan oil-drop > >> experment. Some parts of those experiments and their analysis, > >> relating to finding the value of Avogadro's Number, say, may well be > >> theoretical or unconvincing. But the e/m ratio is purely found by > >> experiments done by J J Thomson in the 19th century. > > > > Ok, so you finally found the relevant experiments. I wonder why you > > didn't mention them before. > > > > Now go back up the thread and see how this fits into the discussion. The > > discussion was not about whether electrons exist. > > > > Sylvia. > > Of course electrons exist even though they have zero size. This is an > article of faith. Electrons have no size but do have mass. So no size is > ever needed for mass. Odd's favorite textbooks prove all this. benj you are also a witless wonder of the universe.Think before you post Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 18:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmklnb$nav$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700994 |
Obediently "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com>, the swine, shows up for his #5 roll-call to prove with his lies & his stupid palaver that Bert still is a mental Cadaver. O ya. Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 12:09 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv67rcFmrc5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700961 |
On 3/09/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/2/2018 9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 3/09/2018 10:23 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 9:11:40 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not >>>>>>>>>>> science/physics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they >>>>>>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from >>>>>>>>>> quarks? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons >>>>>>>>> protons differ from quarks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your >>>>>>>>> head while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That doesn't say much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've >>>>>>>> heard the term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a >>>>>>>> delusion. An electron is a theory in physics as much as is >>>>>>>> a quark. At most, experimental verifications of the theory >>>>>>>> are a bit more accessible in the case of the electron, >>>>>>>> since particle accelerators are not required. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and >>>>>>> that we see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the >>>>>>> picture right and you will know I'm right Bert >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our >>>>>> everyday experience of electricity points to the existence of >>>>>> electrons. People just take it as read. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen >>>>> cathode ray tubes? >>>>> >>>> >>>> And again. >>>> >>>> Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. >>> >>> Of course they do. >>>> >>>> It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, >>>> which is the first step. >>> >>> Thermionic emissions (heating a filament to drive out electrons) used >>> in early valves show the existence of a negative charge which also >>> have mass, and that we call space charge comprised of individual >>> electrons. >>> >>> The size of an electron is found out by various experiments - such as >>> relating to electrolysis and the controversial Millikan oil-drop >>> experment. Some parts of those experiments and their analysis, >>> relating to finding the value of Avogadro's Number, say, may well be >>> theoretical or unconvincing. But the e/m ratio is purely found by >>> experiments done by J J Thomson in the 19th century. >> >> Ok, so you finally found the relevant experiments. I wonder why you >> didn't mention them before. >> >> Now go back up the thread and see how this fits into the discussion. >> The discussion was not about whether electrons exist. >> >> Sylvia. > > Of course electrons exist even though they have zero size. This is an > article of faith. Electrons have no size but do have mass. So no size is > ever needed for mass. Odd's favorite textbooks prove all this. As I said, the discussion was not about whether electrons exist. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 05:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f5e410f-10f9-4bfe-b77e-9dcdc64a66b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701047 |
On Tuesday, 4 September 2018 12:09:52 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/09/2018 11:59 PM, benj wrote: > > On 9/2/2018 9:55 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 3/09/2018 10:23 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 9:11:40 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 3/09/2018 8:50 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, September 3, 2018 at 8:46:47 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/09/2018 6:52 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 2:36:38 AM UTC-7, Sylvia > >>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 1/09/2018 7:29 PM, poraty149@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 1, 2018 at 9:39:10 AM UTC+3, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2018 7:09 PM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> How many followers does it have? Quarks are not > >>>>>>>>>>> science/physics. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> What about electrons, protons, neutrons? Are they > >>>>>>>>>> science/physics? If so, how do they differ from > >>>>>>>>>> quarks? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> ====================== i will tell you how electrons > >>>>>>>>> protons differ from quarks > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> first of all quarks are like say 2 fansy hats on your > >>>>>>>>> head while you have hands and legs etc how about it ?? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That doesn't say much. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> People may feel familiar with electrons because they've > >>>>>>>> heard the term all their lives. If so, that feeling is a > >>>>>>>> delusion. An electron is a theory in physics as much as is > >>>>>>>> a quark. At most, experimental verifications of the theory > >>>>>>>> are a bit more accessible in the case of the electron, > >>>>>>>> since particle accelerators are not required. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Your 100% wrong the flow of electrons give us electricity,and > >>>>>>> that we see,use and feel every second of our lives.Get the > >>>>>>> picture right and you will know I'm right Bert > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's a perfect example of my point. Nothing about our > >>>>>> everyday experience of electricity points to the existence of > >>>>>> electrons. People just take it as read. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Never heard of thermionic emission? Too young to have seen > >>>>> cathode ray tubes? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> And again. > >>>> > >>>> Neither of those demonstrates the existence of the electron. > >>> > >>> Of course they do. > >>>> > >>>> It takes careful experiments to show that charge is quantised, > >>>> which is the first step. > >>> > >>> Thermionic emissions (heating a filament to drive out electrons) used > >>> in early valves show the existence of a negative charge which also > >>> have mass, and that we call space charge comprised of individual > >>> electrons. > >>> > >>> The size of an electron is found out by various experiments - such as > >>> relating to electrolysis and the controversial Millikan oil-drop > >>> experment. Some parts of those experiments and their analysis, > >>> relating to finding the value of Avogadro's Number, say, may well be > >>> theoretical or unconvincing. But the e/m ratio is purely found by > >>> experiments done by J J Thomson in the 19th century. > >> > >> Ok, so you finally found the relevant experiments. I wonder why you > >> didn't mention them before. It was not necessary. > >> > >> Now go back up the thread and see how this fits into the discussion. > >> The discussion was not about whether electrons exist. As they exist they are not a theory but a fact. You were saying that electrons are as theoretical as quarks. That is a false statement. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Of course electrons exist even though they have zero size. This is an > > article of faith. Electrons have no size but do have mass. So no size is > > ever needed for mass. Odd's favorite textbooks prove all this. > > As I said, the discussion was not about whether electrons exist. > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 05:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <061dec26-1e5c-4914-bdbc-3e85b05dc6a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701070 |
Ari “As they exist they are not a theory but a fact. You were saying that electrons are as theoretical as quarks. That is a false statement. “ Exactly. Static electricity shows them
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 06:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e562167-6766-4694-8c69-97648bb2ac97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701072 |
Of course, John.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <571767de-aa87-4e77-9602-5475f6443cb7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701075 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 6:29:11 AM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > Of course, John. My empty styofoam cup moved away from my hand and did it about an inch away.We all know why Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmmo3s$o0l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #701118 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "My empty styofoam cup moved away from my hand and did it about an inch away.We all know why that is so since "My bar tab for Bud Light broke all records" Bert "and along the very same line I guzzle my wine". Bert "I use Cocaine that is a wonder-drug for me". Bert. "The drugs I'm taking are fogging my mind". Ber "I can't even remember lots of stuff".Bert ... But... "I will do even more Drugs till the end of my time". Bert > "I am a first class low wit bigot. Sad and so true. Bert" "I daily bleat "My Stupid Palaver ( = MSP) to prove that I have alwasy been a Mental Cadaver. Bert" ____ "I park & bark in the dark. Bert" _________ "I'm a stupid shit and always very full of it." Bert." > "Why am I posting this, it's making me cry as it always does".Bert "Being Jewish I know this is so very true". That is a given. Bert "Get the picture", "Go figure", "O ya", "I know why".Bert > ______ "Why am I not loved by all?". Bert. _________ > "I am a proud Marxist/Soros/Bolshevik Jew with a IQ of 1-point-22". Bert "I have a Superiority complex" without any quirks which lets me know how everything works." as is seen by <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> as the <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> which shows that SwineBert has always-ONLY-ONE-thing-on his mind, namely to do all those items-from-(1)-to-item-(5): > (1) On 07Feb 2015 & on 08Feb2015, Face-Shitter Glazier wrote: Harlow Campbell HVAC, Mr.HVAC@gmail.com, & Saul Levy <saullevy1@cox.net & Jacoby Benj, <nobody@gmail.com>: "I'll be sitting on your faces to take a shit & say: "Open wide". <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> > (2) On 06Dec2014, when the Christian-Hater, JewPigBert Glazier said to "benj" <nobody@gmail.com>: "Reality is you always post under me for you are an ass kisser. For Christmas I'll shit on your kisser." <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> "Benj, you can thank me in advance". - TreBert. ... addinng > (3) On 03Aug2017: "benj, you eat shit and your shitty brain is coming out your ears." On 20Jul2018: Benj, my posts are way over your head.Reality is your head is up your ass.So fart it out before you get constipated.Bert > (4) On 25Mar2008, Graveyard Vandal Glazier wrote in: <https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/3ffe7b2257cf8a9a> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/sci.physics/uYtpFTRnW4k/morPVyJ7_j8J> "Hanson, I will piss on your grave. And have a good laugh when it seeps down on your face". -- Bert > (5) On 24Jun2018 SwineBert Glazier said to Mark Earnest <gmearnest@att.net> "your nose is
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c9635468-853d-4e9e-acce-d53412e8c528@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701118 |
Toxic cretinism is what e=mcc is all about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 00:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmn6fa$cho$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #701137 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > Toxic cretinism is what e=mcc is all about. > Anything that makes no sense to a competent engineer must be wrong, so sayeth the self-righteous engineer. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 17:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42aa8165-8d56-4ca4-a34c-5a668d46cada@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701148 |
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 10:02:56 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > > Toxic cretinism is what e=mcc is all about. > > > > Anything that makes no sense to a competent engineer must be wrong, so > sayeth the self-righteous engineer. > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables e=mcc makes sense only for money-making via theft of public moneys for "research" and fiction. It certainly is toxic cretinism. Sooner the world gets this, the better for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 00:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmn888$enk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #701148 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> Toxic cretinism is what e=mcc is all about. >> > > Anything that makes no sense to a competent engineer must be wrong, so > sayeth the self-righteous engineer. > Elaborating: Any theory that makes no sense to a competent engineer must be wrong, because it is incomprehensible. Any theory that yields no practical everyday device is wrong, because it is useless. Any theory beyond Newton and Maxwell is wrong, because it is unnecessary. Any theory that consumes resources away from an engineer’s pet project is wrong, because it is misdirected. Have I got the MRE (Mantra of the Retired Engineer) down right? -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75b870ca-efa7-489e-bc80-e8aeb4bf9a89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701154 |
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 10:33:17 UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Toxic cretinism is what e=mcc is all about. > >> > > > > Anything that makes no sense to a competent engineer must be wrong, so > > sayeth the self-righteous engineer. > > > > Elaborating: > > Any theory that makes no sense to a competent engineer must be wrong, > because it is incomprehensible. Yes, because making something scientific incomprehensible to a competent engineer must involve mumbo-jumbo - and so, has to be wrong. > Any theory that yields no practical everyday device is wrong, because it is > useless. No. A valid theory will have practical value sooner or later, when sufficient advances are made in related areas; and the true scientific and rational spirit triumphs over the dishonest and irrational attitudes. Theories, based upon pure imagination and no factual basis; or theories that have internal logical contradictions such as construing appearance as reality; must be dismissed. Like, the theory that a stick actually bends when it is placed in water, and straightens when it comes out, has to be rejected. > Any theory beyond Newton and Maxwell is wrong, because it is unnecessary. No. It is necessary to know of the atomic nucleus, electronics and semiconductors, queuing issues, superconductivity, and then construct theories based upon experiments that are sensible and practical; while rejecting old theories that are outdated and nonsensical. > > Any theory that consumes resources away from an engineer’s pet project is > wrong, because it is misdirected. No. Not any theory, but theories based upon false premises, upon which enormous funds have already been wasted for no practical results, must not be funded any more. > > Have I got the MRE (Mantra of the Retired Engineer) down right? Let me see. About 25%. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web