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 | 15 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 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 16:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmp0f8$8mg$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #701215 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes: >On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 8:33:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> I think I have you retired engineers pegged. >> Have I got the MRE (Mantra of the Retired Engineer) down right? >Guess I'm glad that I am still working! >Not retired yet, Now I am worried. Will my brain turn to mush when I retire? What causes the brains of engineers to turn to mush when they retire? Also not retired yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmr9og$11k0$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #701220 |
On 9/5/2018 11:32 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 8:33:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> I think I have you retired engineers pegged.
>
>>> Have I got the MRE (Mantra of the Retired Engineer) down right?
>
>> Guess I'm glad that I am still working!
>
>> Not retired yet,
>
> Now I am worried. Will my brain turn to mush when I retire?
yours? yes.
> What causes the brains of engineers to turn to mush when they retire?
using Google, Facebook, and Tweeter. (but not Minecraft)
>
> Also not retired yet.
>
keep reading non fiction!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5160f5fd-f5f1-4ef1-8390-c916b10c34ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701072 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 5:41:18 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > 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 Roy Masters? The static electric is a temporary bond not electric conductance...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 08:33 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv8fhkF6f9fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #701070 |
On 4/09/2018 10:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > 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. The point is that our knowledge of their existence is based on experiments that verify the theoretical model of them. The same is true of quarks. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-04 16:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5287c45d-dc5f-464a-a7a5-81e127a8bde4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701138 |
On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 08:33:28 UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/09/2018 10:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > 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. > > The point is that our knowledge of their existence is based on > experiments that verify the theoretical model of them. In any case, electrons are not theory but fact. One can use electrons to make theories. Like, an electron binds two protons to form a deuterium nucleus. This is a theory. Which can be used to explain the power of the hydrogen bomb on the electrostatic basis - the displacement of the electron with fission forces releases the bond, and the opposite polarity of the two very close protons causes very rapid acceleration, leading to huge forces causing enormous energies very rapidly with chain reaction to similar nuclei. This is a theory, and a far better one - being logical and intuitive - than saying dogmatically that all the H-bomb energy is got from e=mcc and fusion. > > The same is true of quarks. No, unless you call an electron a quark. That won't be science. That will be pointless semantics. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 10:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <369d502a-8098-44bf-a779-2c368ec7ebce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701138 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 3:33:28 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 4/09/2018 10:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > 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. > > The point is that our knowledge of their existence is based on > experiments that verify the theoretical model of them. > > The same is true of quarks. > > Sylvia. Quarks go with good theoretical thinking.Some from what Cern is showing.Electrons and their field is reality.We see it everywhere even when we dream.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-07 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmuff5$mdk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #701566 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> sees how <https://tinyurl.com/Trump-is-walking-all-over-Bert>, everywhere, even when he dreams.Bert --- It's a pity. O ya.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 03:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5cea463e-c5dc-412d-9029-23aa066b3406@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701566 |
On Saturday, 8 September 2018 03:56:04 UTC+10, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 3:33:28 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 4/09/2018 10:24 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > 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. > > > > The point is that our knowledge of their existence is based on > > experiments that verify the theoretical model of them. > > > > The same is true of quarks. > > > > Sylvia. > > Quarks go with good theoretical thinking.Some from what Cern is showing.Electrons and their field is reality.We see it everywhere even when we dream.Bert When theory is imagination+bullshit+dishonesty, then yes quarks go with such "good" theoretical thinking.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 17:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <534848bf-fb72-40f3-8386-fe8eeafda0e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700900 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, 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. Electrons are EM energy.Electrons have weight.Read up how Feynman explains electrons.He does it best.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 11:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fv3im7F645uU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #700915 |
On 3/09/2018 10:41 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, 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. > > Electrons are EM energy.Electrons have weight.Read up how Feynman explains electrons.He does it best.Bert > You too seem to have lost track of the point of this discussion. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 23:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pmici1$9nd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #700929 |
On 9/2/2018 8:56 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 3/09/2018 10:41 AM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, 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. >> >> Electrons are EM energy.Electrons have weight.Read up how Feynman >> explains electrons.He does it best.Bert >> > > You too seem to have lost track of the point of this discussion. > > Sylvia. yea, he gets off track all the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0e203e4-c096-4512-9dcc-952d58445fcb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700915 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, 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 Roy Masters? You had your free energy machine. What you said never panned out. It will always be known as fiction. The world doesn't have to believe Roy Masters... You played God over electricity... Where did that get you? Did you save the world? > > > > > > > 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. > > Electrons are EM energy.Electrons have weight.Read up how Feynman explains electrons.He does it best.Bert Feynman was a creep. Weight has its place... at the solid atom surface for the sum of inner point energy quantities. Energy and its density become weight at the atom surface by gravity or changing motion. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a68765ac-a356-492d-b817-bc3a2753a747@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700931 |
On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 7:17:21 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 5:41:42 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > > On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 3:46:47 PM UTC-7, 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 > > > Roy Masters? You had your free energy machine. > > What you said never panned out. > It will always be known as fiction. > The world doesn't have to believe > Roy Masters... > > > You played God over electricity... > Where did that get you? > Did you save the world? > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Electrons are EM energy.Electrons have weight.Read up how Feynman explains electrons.He does it best.Bert > > Feynman was a creep. Weight has its place... at the solid atom surface > for the sum of inner point energy quantities. Energy and its density > become weight at the atom surface by gravity or changing motion. > > Mitchell Raemsch Feynman you say is a creep,and that alone shows what a low wit you are.He got a Nobel,a great teacher,great math man,and had a sense of humor.He was over your head and that is why you called him names.Shame on you and your worthless God.Craw back under your rock.You are a turd fist class.Bert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmkldq$lke$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700992 |
The mental cripple "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> caused Mitchell Raemsch <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> to say: "Glazier, you are yodeling in & from your jail's mental hospital ward" ... & GOPers will put <https://tinyurl.com/Glazier-in-Mental-Institution> > ==== See more in Glazier's Dossier ===== > > hmmm...<snicker> <chuckle> <chortle> ROTFLMAO
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-02 20:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmi8p3$iol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #700915 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote that SwineBert has no idea what he is talking about. So, "Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote: "Bert you have lost track of the point of this discussion", which is understandable, since SwineBert has always been a mental cadaver, as can be seen in Bert's posts which are nothing then utterly stupid Palaver. O ya.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web