Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #562012 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-14 14:11 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 101 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 20:23 -0800
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:20 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 11:27 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Anonymous <anonymous@foto.nl1.torservers.net> - 2016-03-19 13:44 -0400
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:20 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-03-13 17:06 -0700
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 09:55 -0500
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-03-14 08:09 -0700
Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 10:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 13:27 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:07 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:19 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:44 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 21:42 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 06:25 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:55 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:59 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:49 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 09:51 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:13 -0500
camsZor noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 10:30 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:59 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:40 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 18:49 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:43 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:18 +0000
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 15:08 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:34 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 23:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 11:51 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 16:38 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 18:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 17:46 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:09 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 22:21 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 14:26 -0700
numbers as quotients etc. (fractions as exponents e.g noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 17:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 14:59 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 06:12 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 08:49 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 07:35 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 09:43 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 08:20 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 11:28 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 10:19 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 16:25 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 07:05 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 09:22 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 11:53 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:20 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 03:02 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 11:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 14:54 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-31 16:58 -0500
forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 11:26 -0700
forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-02 20:54 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 10:57 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 21:21 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-04 01:13 -0400
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 06:26 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 14:12 -0700
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-05 13:26 -0400
linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 14:17 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 17:15 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 10:47 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 12:32 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:41 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:42 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 16:27 -0500
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 13:12 -0700
Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 11:42 -0700
Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-04-10 21:57 +0000
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 15:54 -0500
Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 22:59 -0700
Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 07:23 -0500
Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 13:51 -0700
Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-04-06 00:13 -0400
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:29 -0500
Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 10:22 -0500
gi'me a u. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 08:00 -0700
Re: gi'me a u. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-09 21:39 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:25 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 13:05 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 06:00 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 12:18 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 15:28 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:29 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:15 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 11:34 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 08:41 -0500
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:28 -0700
Re: Casimir, & seasonal shift Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:26 -0400
Re: Occam's Razor on LIGO recent ping Re: was not aware physicists use phony irrational numbers to compensate for LIGO Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame with wrong ideas rather than no fame but the truth? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 14:11 -0500
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 11:26 -0700 |
| Subject | forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ebcaa094-ce8d-4a04-b249-4ea5e8c47299@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567056 |
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 4:58:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/31/2016 4:54 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > I know all of what you speak, and you were a sucker to another fake theory of physics, for it was not a unification. > > Of course it's a unification. It unifies two of the four interactions, > leaving the strong, gravitational, and electroweak interactions. > > > > > If I am correct the Weak nuclear has at least 4 distinct forms since the Coulomb has 4 distinct forms. > > Don't think there's any evidence of that. > > > > > AP > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Alright in Weak Nuclear force we have Alpha decay of a helium nucleus, and beta decay of a electron and we have photon radiation decay for three different phenomenon of Weak Nuclear and thus three different force laws for each decay mode. Do we have a 4th decay mode? Not sure and will look. By the way, I am now out of the medical surgery and clinic and am at home trying to recover to my normal self. I am under weight restrictions to guard from a hernia and that limits me somewhat. But soon I should be in posting style of my former self, only my posts should be brief. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 20:54 -0700 |
| Subject | forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <4c08cada-e178-47e0-9f51-aaf1276ba037@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567525 |
Neutron decay is the fourth. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 10:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <a9a48e87-cd07-410e-a48b-0a987275a39c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567597 |
On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Neutron decay is the fourth. > > AP So, what we have here is an agreement of Coulomb force being the only force in physics and which has a variable force formulas ranging from: 1) V proportional R 2) V proportional constant 3) 1/R 4) 1/R^2 And the Weak Nuclear force also is a variable force with these: 1) alpha decay 2) beta decay 3) photon emission 4) neutron decay AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 21:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <db385210-9971-4849-9b7e-7fb9c2c84ab5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567712 |
On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 12:58:02 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Neutron decay is the fourth. > > > > AP > > So, what we have here is an agreement of Coulomb force being the only force in physics and which has a variable force formulas ranging from: > > 1) V proportional R > 2) V proportional constant > 3) 1/R > 4) 1/R^2 > > And the Weak Nuclear force also is a variable force with these: > > 1) alpha decay > 2) beta decay > 3) photon emission > 4) neutron decay > > AP Now of course the photon emission is gamma rays. Can we say that each of the 4 weak-nuclear corresponds with a rotation force of Coulomb? Is the Solid Body Rotation that of the alpha decay and the 1/R^2 that of the neutron decay? In other words, are the 4 decays in Weak Nuclear expressions of Coulomb rotation rates? AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snowshoe <no@spam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 01:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ndst20$3ab$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567712 |
On 4/3/2016 1:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> Neutron decay is the fourth. >> >> AP > > So, what we have here is an agreement of Coulomb force being the only force in physics and which has a variable force formulas ranging from: > > 1) V proportional R > 2) V proportional constant > 3) 1/R > 4) 1/R^2 > > And the Weak Nuclear force also is a variable force with these: > > 1) alpha decay Strong force (Residual strong force) > 2) beta decay Weak Force > 3) photon emission Technically electromagnetic force, but really a side effect of the strong force. > 4) neutron decay Decay of a free neutron? That's beta decay or weak force. Emission of a neutron from a nucleus? Residual strong force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 06:26 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <227a0b4a-4200-419c-9965-ed58b3343a1d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567783 |
What's the force called when I slap you on the back of the head?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 14:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <cbbe84d6-3c55-4ad1-b007-3851b1d5c507@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #567783 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:11:38 AM UTC-5, Snowshoe wrote: > On 4/3/2016 1:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >> Neutron decay is the fourth. > >> > >> AP > > > > So, what we have here is an agreement of Coulomb force being the only force in physics and which has a variable force formulas ranging from: > > > > 1) V proportional R > > 2) V proportional constant > > 3) 1/R > > 4) 1/R^2 > > > > And the Weak Nuclear force also is a variable force with these: > > > > 1) alpha decay > > Strong force (Residual strong force) > Hello, thanks for the reply. Can we really, honestly say alpha decay is strong nuclear force or is weak nuclear force, for it appears to me to be a "opinion" as to whether to call alpha decay as strong or weak force. In keeping with logic, should we not call all decay as weak nuclear force. > > 2) beta decay > > Weak Force > > > 3) photon emission > > Technically electromagnetic force, but really a side effect of the > strong force. > > > 4) neutron decay > > Decay of a free neutron? That's beta decay or weak force. > > Emission of a neutron from a nucleus? Residual strong force. Can you please provide a rough estimate of a linear momentum energy of these decay particles: alpha beta gamma ray neutrino in neutron decay In other words the energy to emit these mass or massless particles in decay. I am trying to see which is the most energy content in the decay process of emission. What I am trying to fathom is whether the energy content of emission of the alpha particle is related to solid body rotation. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snowshoe <no@spam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 13:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ne0sbm$lg7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567942 |
On 4/4/2016 5:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:11:38 AM UTC-5, Snowshoe wrote: >> On 4/3/2016 1:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>>> Neutron decay is the fourth. >>>> >>>> AP >>> >>> So, what we have here is an agreement of Coulomb force being the only >>> force in physics and which has a variable force formulas ranging from: >>> >>> 1) V proportional R >>> 2) V proportional constant >>> 3) 1/R >>> 4) 1/R^2 >>> >>> And the Weak Nuclear force also is a variable force with these: >>> >>> 1) alpha decay >> >> Strong force (Residual strong force) >> > > Hello, thanks for the reply. Can we really, honestly say alpha decay is > strong nuclear force or is weak nuclear force, for it appears to me to be > a "opinion" as to whether to call alpha decay as strong or weak force. In > keeping with logic, should we not call all decay as weak nuclear force. No, each type of decay has its own characteristics. Weak decays always involve either a lepton or a quark changing into a different kind of lepton or quark. For an ordinary atom this pretty much restricts it to a neutron becoming a proton or vice versa, with one of the nucleon's quarks changing type. In the process, either an electron is captured or an electron or positron is emitted. (plus neutrino/antineutrino) So, for atoms, beta decay, beta+ decay and electron capture are forms of weak process decay. A free neutron decaying into a proton, electron and antineutrino is a form of beta decay, a weak force process. Other forms of decays involve rearrangement of stuff in the nucleus, and involve either the (residual) strong force or electromagnetic force. Alpha decay and fission are rearrangements of nucleons into different "packages" and involve the strong force. A gamma ray is electromagnetic and involves something inside moving to a lower energy state, and the gamma ray carries off the energy difference. > > >>> 2) beta decay >> >> Weak Force >> >>> 3) photon emission >> >> Technically electromagnetic force, but really a side effect of the >> strong force. >> >>> 4) neutron decay >> >> Decay of a free neutron? That's beta decay or weak force. >> >> Emission of a neutron from a nucleus? Residual strong force. > > Can you please provide a rough estimate of a linear momentum energy of these decay particles: > alpha > beta > gamma ray > neutrino in neutron decay It's different for each nucleus. Many times the energies are millions of electron volts. There is, however, at least one isotope which emits a "gamma ray" of just a few electron volts, it's actually in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 14:17 -0700 |
| Subject | linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <003fc352-080c-40b6-9fc9-037d85b6ea2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568054 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, Snowshoe wrote: > On 4/4/2016 5:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 12:11:38 AM UTC-5, Snowshoe wrote: > >> On 4/3/2016 1:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >>> On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:54:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >>>> Neutron decay is the fourth. > >>>> > >>>> AP > >>> > >>> So, what we have here is an agreement of Coulomb force being the only > >>> force in physics and which has a variable force formulas ranging from: > >>> > >>> 1) V proportional R > >>> 2) V proportional constant > >>> 3) 1/R > >>> 4) 1/R^2 > >>> > >>> And the Weak Nuclear force also is a variable force with these: > >>> > >>> 1) alpha decay > >> > >> Strong force (Residual strong force) > >> > > > > Hello, thanks for the reply. Can we really, honestly say alpha decay is > > strong nuclear force or is weak nuclear force, for it appears to me to be > > a "opinion" as to whether to call alpha decay as strong or weak force. In > > keeping with logic, should we not call all decay as weak nuclear force. > > No, each type of decay has its own characteristics. Weak decays always > involve either a lepton or a quark changing into a different kind of > lepton or quark. For an ordinary atom this pretty much restricts it to a > neutron becoming a proton or vice versa, with one of the nucleon's > quarks changing type. In the process, either an electron is captured or > an electron or positron is emitted. (plus neutrino/antineutrino) So, for > atoms, beta decay, beta+ decay and electron capture are forms of weak > process decay. A free neutron decaying into a proton, electron and > antineutrino is a form of beta decay, a weak force process. > > Other forms of decays involve rearrangement of stuff in the nucleus, and > involve either the (residual) strong force or electromagnetic force. > Alpha decay and fission are rearrangements of nucleons into different > "packages" and involve the strong force. A gamma ray is electromagnetic > and involves something inside moving to a lower energy state, and the > gamma ray carries off the energy difference. > > > > > >>> 2) beta decay > >> > >> Weak Force > >> > >>> 3) photon emission > >> > >> Technically electromagnetic force, but really a side effect of the > >> strong force. > >> > >>> 4) neutron decay > >> > >> Decay of a free neutron? That's beta decay or weak force. > >> > >> Emission of a neutron from a nucleus? Residual strong force. > > > > Can you please provide a rough estimate of a linear momentum energy of these decay particles: > > alpha > > beta > > gamma ray > > neutrino in neutron decay > > It's different for each nucleus. Many times the energies are millions of > electron volts. There is, however, at least one isotope which emits a > "gamma ray" of just a few electron volts, it's actually in the > ultraviolet region of the spectrum. Thanks for this information. Of course, I do not believe or accept quark theory, so that part is irrelevant to me. I am hoping someone in sci.physics has enough physics knowledge to be able to give a description of the amount of energy involved in a typical alpha emission, a typical beta emmission, a typical gamma ray emission and a typical antineutrino emission with the fact that alpha and beta have rest masses when the last two have none. What I am trying to link, is those numbers with the V proportional R, V proportional constant, 1/R, and 1/R^2 in rotation motion. So that the alpha particle is solid body rotation energy and the beta is V proportional to constant and the gamma ray is 1/R and the antineutrino is 1/R^2. In other words, Weak Nuclear force is a mirror reflection of the fact that the Coulomb force is a variable force law ranging from solid body rotation all the way down to 1/R^2. Are you able to give me a rough number estimate of the energies of these four? AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 17:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <FqednS6EXIyEpJnKnZ2dnUU7-VednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568118 |
On 4/5/16 4:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I do not believe or accept quark theory Quarks are pretty important part of matter (hadrons), and it's a pity you reject the copious scientific evidence for their existence, AP. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 10:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <90bd2778-d8c3-44ec-809f-0ea34678146b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568132 |
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 5:15:56 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/5/16 4:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > I do not believe or accept quark theory > > > Quarks are pretty important part of matter (hadrons), and it's a pity > you reject the copious scientific evidence for their existence, AP. > > > -- A true theory like that of Maxwell of the 1860s did not take long to revolutionize human society when 50 years after Maxwell we already had radio waves and all sorts of practical gadgets of electricity. Contrast that with fakery or just math scaffolding that is Quark theory where nothing comes of the theory. It is a pity that Sam was never really a scientist. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 13:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ne3jds$1gd2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568334 |
On 4/6/2016 12:47 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > A true theory like that of Maxwell of the 1860s did not take long to revolutionize human society > when 50 years after Maxwell we already had radio waves and all sorts of practical gadgets of electricity. > > Contrast that with fakery or just math scaffolding that is Quark theory where nothing comes of the theory. > > It is a pity that Sam was never really a scientist. > > AP Mendelian genetics was ignored for almost a century before anyone made practical use of it. Newtonian gravity explained a lot but had absolutely no practical value until the discovery of Neptune, and you can dispute whether that was practical. That's several centuries, dude. There are certainly cases of fundamental science that produced practical outcomes in a short period of time. Quantum mechanics is a great example. There are also lots of cases of fundamental science that produced no practical gains for well over a century, and that is also just fine. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 12:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <00b70d73-dead-40f6-842d-8ee7f5ed08b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568334 |
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:47:54 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 5:15:56 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > > On 4/5/16 4:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > I do not believe or accept quark theory > > > > > > Quarks are pretty important part of matter (hadrons), and it's a pity > > you reject the copious scientific evidence for their existence, AP. > > > > > > -- > > A true theory like that of Maxwell of the 1860s did not take long to revolutionize human society when 50 years after Maxwell we already had radio waves and all sorts of practical gadgets of electricity. > > Contrast that with fakery or just math scaffolding that is Quark theory where nothing comes of the theory. > > It is a pity that Sam was never really a scientist. > > AP Now there is recent evidence supporting my theory that Coulomb force and thus gravity is not a monolithic formula of a force but is variable and comes in varieties of force strength. In the recent 2April2016 of NEW SCIENTIST of "Smash and Grab" . . spells trouble for established ideas of gravity by Stuart Clark talks about how gravity is better off as a variable force and on page 33 shows "Gravity assist" with modified gravity reminding me of the rotation curves when Velocity is proportional to a constant is a flat line function curve. I will now start a new thread, since I am at home recovering from cancer and can keep track of these threads. Let me note, though of a fact I ran across the other day, in that Richard Feynman died at age 69 of the very same type of cancer-- liposarcoma. Did anyone track Feynman with his last years of life and this cancer? Did he live 3 years beyond the diagnosis of liposarcoma or was it a quick death. Because, well, I am 66 in July and the prognosis for me is anywhere around 3 to 10 years at my best guess. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 15:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <4_udnZjyZ52KW5vKnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #568648 |
On 4/7/16 2:32 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now there is recent evidence supporting my theory that Coulomb force > and thus gravity is not a monolithic formula of a force but is > variable and comes in varieties of force strength. I doubt it. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-07 15:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ne6gmm$dt7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568648 |
On 4/7/2016 2:32 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Let me note, though of a fact I ran across the other day, in that Richard Feynman > died at age 69 of the very same type of cancer-- liposarcoma. Did anyone track Feynman > with his last years of life and this cancer? Did he live 3 years beyond the diagnosis > of liposarcoma or was it a quick death. Because, well, I am 66 in July and the prognosis > for me is anywhere around 3 to 10 years at my best guess. Feynman was diagnosed in 1979 and lived to 1988. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 12:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <67c2f410-354b-4b5e-9a15-cacde6c3cccf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568688 |
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:42:05 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/7/2016 2:32 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Let me note, though of a fact I ran across the other day, in that Richard Feynman > > died at age 69 of the very same type of cancer-- liposarcoma. Did anyone track Feynman > > with his last years of life and this cancer? Did he live 3 years beyond the diagnosis > > of liposarcoma or was it a quick death. Because, well, I am 66 in July and the prognosis > > for me is anywhere around 3 to 10 years at my best guess. > > Feynman was diagnosed in 1979 and lived to 1988. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I am sure he would have had the best medical attention available at that time. Was he in the Cornell clinic? AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-08 16:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ne97nj$19p3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569061 |
On 4/8/2016 2:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 3:42:05 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/7/2016 2:32 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>> Let me note, though of a fact I ran across the other day, in that Richard Feynman >>> died at age 69 of the very same type of cancer-- liposarcoma. Did anyone track Feynman >>> with his last years of life and this cancer? Did he live 3 years beyond the diagnosis >>> of liposarcoma or was it a quick death. Because, well, I am 66 in July and the prognosis >>> for me is anywhere around 3 to 10 years at my best guess. >> >> Feynman was diagnosed in 1979 and lived to 1988. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I am sure he would have had the best medical attention available at that time. Was he in the > Cornell clinic? Feynman was at CalTech for the latter part of his career, not Cornell. He had two forms of cancer, not just one. He died at the UCLA Medical Center. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 13:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <26c5e48d-9ac4-4162-836f-02cb77647c0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569080 |
On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: (snipped) Does any biographer go into details of his illness? AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 11:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 |
| Message-ID | <74004abb-b0eb-4f18-ab7e-b40e644335ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569276 |
On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 3:12:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > (snipped) > > Does any biographer go into details of his illness? > > AP Wikipedia says that Feynmann had liposarcoma which he died of, but he also had Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. I had anemia with the tumor also, and wonder if Feynmann's anemia is just a worse one than mine? I wonder if liposarcoma brings on anemia? Does anyone know if Feynmann's liposarcoma was in the belly, and whether he wore elastics, elastic belt. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 21:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma and death at 69 age, 1988 |
| Message-ID | <neei7e$hdi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569493 |
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 3:12:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> (snipped) >> Does any biographer go into details of his illness? >> AP > Wikipedia says that Feynmann had liposarcoma which he died of, but he also had Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. > I had anemia with the tumor also, and wonder if Feynmann's anemia is just a worse one than mine? > I wonder if liposarcoma brings on anemia? Only around 10% of liposarcoma is associated with anaemia. > Does anyone know if Feynmann's liposarcoma was in the belly, and whether he wore elastics, elastic belt. > AP -- [The Carbon Cycle:] Transient or not, animals are not "carbon neutral". -- Paul /D\brin, 29 Dec 2014
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web