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 112 — 17 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? "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 01:21 -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? 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: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 12:19 -0500
inside a cell that is dividing and applied pressure Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 22:11 -0700
Re: inside a cell that is dividing and applied pressure Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 22:08 -0700
spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 13:39 -0700
best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 19:49 -0700
Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-16 22:03 -0700
Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 19:55 -0500
Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 14:33 -0700
Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Jackpol11@hotmail.com - 2016-04-21 10:53 -0400
Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 11:07 -0500
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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| 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$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569493 |
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 3:12:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> On Friday, April 8, 2016 at 4:27:24 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> (snipped) >> Does any biographer go into details of his illness? >> AP > Wikipedia says that Feynmann had liposarcoma which he died of, but he also had Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. > I had anemia with the tumor also, and wonder if Feynmann's anemia is just a worse one than mine? > I wonder if liposarcoma brings on anemia? Only around 10% of liposarcoma is associated with anaemia. > Does anyone know if Feynmann's liposarcoma was in the belly, and whether he wore elastics, elastic belt. > AP -- [The Carbon Cycle:] Transient or not, animals are not "carbon neutral". -- Paul /D\brin, 29 Dec 2014
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 15:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <neeeh6$bko$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569276 |
On 4/9/2016 3:12 PM, 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 > One of his former students, Ralph Leighton, wrote a book called Tuva or Bust, which is about his last years. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-10 22:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ec24695a-6ac3-49e8-9e0b-3846c255dbf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569532 |
On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 3:54:05 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/9/2016 3:12 PM, 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 > > > > One of his former students, Ralph Leighton, wrote a book called Tuva or > Bust, which is about his last years. > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Thanks for that information, and see if the library has the book. I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-11 07:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <neg4ut$101n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569632 |
On 4/11/2016 12:59 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, April 10, 2016 at 3:54:05 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/9/2016 3:12 PM, 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 >>> >> >> One of his former students, Ralph Leighton, wrote a book called Tuva or >> Bust, which is about his last years. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Thanks for that information, and see if the library has the book. > > I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed > account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. You are right, you're not going to find detailed accounts of his medical treatment, because privacy laws prohibit it unless the patient agrees to disclose all those details, and Feynman did not. You would do better to find people who suffer from liposarcoma who have authorized disclosure who are not famous physicists, as the disease does not care what the person did for a living. > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-12 13:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <a4c14091-9c42-428e-9223-da6cf967f1da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #569674 |
On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:22:57 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/11/2016 12:59 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) > > I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed > > account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. > > You are right, you're not going to find detailed accounts of his medical > treatment, because privacy laws prohibit it unless the patient agrees to > disclose all those details, and Feynman did not. You would do better to > find people who suffer from liposarcoma who have authorized disclosure > who are not famous physicists, as the disease does not care what the > person did for a living. > Well a disease can be specific to a occupation, such as mercury with the hat profession in past history of Mad-Hatter disease. If my compression theory is correct that some cancers are induced by pressure to dividing cells causing a cell to go cancerous, then the entire Western culture of "elastics" to hold up pants or socks could cause these liposomas and liposarcomas. And even more worrying is the breast cancer with the pressure of elastics on breasts. I have heard of many cases of breast cancer where the tumour is at a distance from the center of the breasts and more located where the elastic used to be. I have heard of cultures that use no elastic and have far fewer cases of breast cancer. Now I am interested in looking up whether wrist watches pressure caused some cancers in the wrist region. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 12:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <nelv3k$cuj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #569982 |
On 4/12/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 7:22:57 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/11/2016 12:59 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > (snipped) >>> I wonder how much of "medical privacy" is given to famous scientists so that no proper detailed >>> account of Feynmann's cancer can be known by the public, especially curious scientists. >> >> You are right, you're not going to find detailed accounts of his medical >> treatment, because privacy laws prohibit it unless the patient agrees to >> disclose all those details, and Feynman did not. You would do better to >> find people who suffer from liposarcoma who have authorized disclosure >> who are not famous physicists, as the disease does not care what the >> person did for a living. >> > > Well a disease can be specific to a occupation, such as mercury with the hat profession in past > history of Mad-Hatter disease. OK. This doesn't make liposarcoma specific to famous physicists, does it? > > If my compression theory is correct that some cancers are induced by pressure to dividing cells > causing a cell to go cancerous, then the entire Western culture of "elastics" to hold up pants > or socks could cause these liposomas and liposarcomas. And even more worrying is the breast > cancer with the pressure of elastics on breasts. I have heard of many cases of breast cancer > where the tumour is at a distance from the center of the breasts and more located where the > elastic used to be. I have heard of cultures that use no elastic and have far fewer cases of > breast cancer. > > Now I am interested in looking up whether wrist watches pressure caused some cancers in the > wrist region. OK, pursue your Elastic-is-evil hypothesis and good luck. You'll note that the wearing of elastic is not associated with being a famous physicist, either. You may also be aware that spontaneous cancers sometimes arise without manmade environmental cause. Everything from natural underground uranium to cosmic rays to simple chromosomal errors in cellular division cause cancer, and there is not a single man-made cause to point a finger at. Would that bother you, not to have something to blame? > > AP > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-13 22:11 -0700 |
| Subject | inside a cell that is dividing and applied pressure Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <195ec45d-aaff-4d69-b9e9-1735d5c5effd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570180 |
On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 12:19:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/12/2016 3:51 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) > > OK, pursue your Elastic-is-evil hypothesis and good luck. You'll note > that the wearing of elastic is not associated with being a famous > physicist, either. > I believe the constriction of the body over long periods of time is so harmful as to cause cancer. It is so unnatural for those cells to cope with constant constriction. > You may also be aware that spontaneous cancers sometimes arise without > manmade environmental cause. Everything from natural underground uranium > to cosmic rays to simple chromosomal errors in cellular division cause > cancer, and there is not a single man-made cause to point a finger at. > Would that bother you, not to have something to blame? > Well, I think your term "spontaneous cancer" is just your made up opinion with no evidence to support it. Now I am under doctor orders to not lift any weights more than a milk gallon due to my recent surgery and the chance of a hernia in the belly region. So here we see a disease, quite common that is due to pressure. So if we have hernias because of pressure, seems reasonable to think we can have cancer due to pressure on a dividing cell. Now I am looking into the internals of a cell, and there are structures inside the cell as the cell divides. But suppose pressure is applied while a cell is in division, and we can easily see that such a pressure would make the division process go awry to the point where the division wants to keep on dividing. So the cancer cell originated by pressure. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-14 22:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: inside a cell that is dividing and applied pressure Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <efd32e6a-47e4-4724-ab72-f297417f57ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570345 |
I sort of remember the fibriloblast stage of cell division. Is it at this stage of mitosis, the cell is most vulnerable to pressure that induces a cancer cell? AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-15 13:39 -0700 |
| Subject | spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <c2fcf687-50d2-472b-8b37-0050140599a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570657 |
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 12:08:36 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I sort of remember the fibriloblast stage of cell division. Is it at this stage of mitosis, the cell is most vulnerable to pressure that induces a cancer cell? > > AP Scrap that fibriloblast, for what I was trying to remember was the spindle fibers that occur in mitosis, the phases of mitosis. Wikipedia even shows and discusses these phases. And that mutations can occur during the phases. So what is called "trauma induced cancer" for liposarcomas, is likely to be a pressure on a fat cell during mitosis, in my opinion. So that thousands of fat cells at any moment in time are dividing and that a pressure applied can cause a cancer to arise in one of those fat cells. Of course, a chemical could cause the mutation, but unlikely that radiation. Perhaps a virus could cause the mutation but do viri hang around fat cells? So I would guess that either a chemical or pressure as the cause of liposarcoma. And as for breast cancer, I do not see radiation or viri, but rather see chemical or pressure such as the elastic bra as the major causes. Since back home from the surgery for 2 weeks now, I have been busily trying to find clothing that does not rub or constrict my belly, and I tell you, that is hard to do in this new age of clothing. Elastics are everywhere. And thank goodness I have a sewing machine because I am cutting most of my elastics and sewing the cut. I bought a bathrobe and just bought 3 sweatsuits where it leaves the belly unconstricted. I guess the ideal garment in my case is women's dresses where the shoulders hold the dress and allows the belly freedom of any binding. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 19:49 -0700 |
| Subject | best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <730d74f0-43fc-4125-ac76-77a9ca7d4f3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #570772 |
On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:39:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snip) > Scrap that fibriloblast, for what I was trying to remember was the spindle fibers that occur in mitosis, the phases of mitosis. > > Wikipedia even shows and discusses these phases. And that mutations can occur during the phases. > > So what is called "trauma induced cancer" for liposarcomas, is likely to be a pressure on a fat cell during mitosis, in my opinion. So that thousands of fat cells at any moment in time are dividing and that a pressure applied can cause a cancer to arise in one of those fat cells. Of course, a chemical could cause the mutation, but unlikely that radiation. Perhaps a virus could cause the mutation but do viri hang around fat cells? So I would guess that either a chemical or pressure as the cause of liposarcoma. And as for breast cancer, I do not see radiation or viri, but rather see chemical or pressure such as the elastic bra as the major causes. > > Since back home from the surgery for 2 weeks now, I have been busily trying to find clothing that does not rub or constrict my belly, and I tell you, that is hard to do in this new age of clothing. Elastics are everywhere. And thank goodness I have a sewing machine because I am cutting most of my elastics and sewing the cut. I bought a bathrobe and just bought 3 sweatsuits where it leaves the belly unconstricted. I guess the ideal garment in my case is women's dresses where the shoulders hold the dress and allows the belly freedom of any binding. > > AP Let this be the last of my posts to this thread. Previously I gave an outline of an experiment to prove the Compression theory, some would say hypothesis since not yet shown to be true. I gave the experiment outline of cultured cells, 1/2 of which with applied compression and the other 1/2 as control. If the applied compression produces cancer cells would be proof. But a better experiment would be one of simply peering at cells under the microscope, since we do have advanced microscopy and applying pressure and waiting watching if the cell goes cancerous. Take the most vulnerable phase of mitosis and apply pressure. See if that cell goes cancerous. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-16 22:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <ba360580-80cb-4e62-9101-b0491fd2a1e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #571086 |
Do like sci.math does for front page hogs-- hide the post under abuse. Only way to get rid of McGinn hog clown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 19:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <J_WdnTOmqvIVrYnKnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #571128 |
On 4/17/16 12:03 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Do like sci.math does for front page hogs-- hide the post under abuse. Only way to get rid of McGinn hog clown > There is plenty of bandwidth for all postings. Skip over what you don't want to read. -- 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 | 2016-04-18 14:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <cc8c03c5-dfc4-4941-a583-9cfdbd161d4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #571246 |
On Sunday, April 17, 2016 at 7:55:39 PM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 4/17/16 12:03 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Do like sci.math does for front page hogs-- hide the post under abuse. Only way to get rid of McGinn hog clown > > > > There is plenty of bandwidth for all postings. Skip over what you > don't want to read. > > -- > > sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated > to the discussion of physics, news from the physics > community, and physics-related social issues. Let us apply the same reasoning to our cities. There are plenty of buildings to spray paint graffiti. But if you have laws prohibiting (sci.math treats abuse with hiding the post) there is little to no degradation of the landscape. Sci.math is far cleaner of a newsgroup than is sci.physics with its sewer of front page hogs like McGinn and even Sam's post is a front page hog. If Sam is the Google moderator of sci.physics to look for abuse and act upon abuse. And if his operation is that of massive numbers of posts rather than "hide under abuse" then we clearly can see that the sci.math method is far better than the Wormley method of front page hog churning. Do to sci.physics what is done to sci.math to make it a better newsgroup. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jackpol11@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 10:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <aaqhhb1vdiml30lul2enbbid4uptk695q2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #571086 |
On Sat, 16 Apr 2016 19:49:03 -0700 (PDT), Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote: >On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 3:39:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >(snip) >> Scrap that fibriloblast, for what I was trying to remember was the spindle fibers that occur in mitosis, the phases of mitosis. >> >> Wikipedia even shows and discusses these phases. And that mutations can occur during the phases. >> >> So what is called "trauma induced cancer" for liposarcomas, is likely to be a pressure on a fat cell during mitosis, in my opinion. So that thousands of fat cells at any moment in time are dividing and that a pressure applied can cause a cancer to arise in one of those fat cells. Of course, a chemical could cause the mutation, but unlikely that radiation. Perhaps a virus could cause the mutation but do viri hang around fat cells? So I would guess that either a chemical or pressure as the cause of liposarcoma. And as for breast cancer, I do not see radiation or viri, but rather see chemical or pressure such as the elastic bra as the major causes. >> >> Since back home from the surgery for 2 weeks now, I have been busily trying to find clothing that does not rub or constrict my belly, and I tell you, that is hard to do in this new age of clothing. Elastics are everywhere. And thank goodness I have a sewing machine because I am cutting most of my elastics and sewing the cut. I bought a bathrobe and just bought 3 sweatsuits where it leaves the belly unconstricted. I guess the ideal garment in my case is women's dresses where the shoulders hold the dress and allows the belly freedom of any binding. >> >> AP > >Let this be the last of my posts to this thread. > >Previously I gave an outline of an experiment to prove the Compression theory, some would say hypothesis since not yet shown to be true. > >I gave the experiment outline of cultured cells, 1/2 of which with applied compression and the other 1/2 as control. If the applied compression produces cancer cells would be proof. > >But a better experiment would be one of simply peering at cells under the microscope, since we do have advanced microscopy and applying pressure and waiting watching if the cell goes cancerous. Take the most vulnerable phase of mitosis and apply pressure. See if that cell goes cancerous. > >AP Try suspenders
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-21 11:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: best experiment Re: spindles in DNA mitosis with pressure applied Re: Compression theory as a cause of cancer Re: Feynmann's liposarcoma |
| Message-ID | <nfatri$1bh6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #572089 |
On 4/21/2016 9:53 AM, Jackpol11@hotmail.com wrote: >> Let this be the last of my posts to this thread. >> > >> >Previously I gave an outline of an experiment to prove the Compression theory, some >> > would say hypothesis since not yet shown to be true. >> > >> >I gave the experiment outline of cultured cells, 1/2 of which with applied compression >> >and the other 1/2 as control. If the applied compression produces cancer cells would be proof. >> > >> >But a better experiment would be one of simply peering at cells under the microscope, >> >since we do have advanced microscopy and applying pressure and waiting watching if the >> >cell goes cancerous. Take the most vulnerable phase of mitosis and apply pressure. See >> >if that cell goes cancerous. >> > >> >AP > Try suspenders Or coveralls http://www.target.com/p/dickies-men-s-big-tall-poplin-short-sleeve-coverall/-/A-16692747#prodSlot=medium_1_11&term=coveralls Or overalls http://www.target.com/p/dickies-men-s-denim-bib-overall-indigo-blue-washed-34x32/-/A-14145484#prodSlot=medium_1_1&term=overalls But AP has somehow convinced himself that a woman's dress is his only option. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snowshoe <no@spam.please> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 00:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: linking solid body rotation with alpha decay Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ne228h$juj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #568118 |
On 4/5/2016 5:17 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-5, Snowshoe wrote: >> On 4/4/2016 5:12 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>> Can you please provide a rough estimate of a linear momentum energy of these decay particles: >>> alpha >>> beta >>> gamma ray >>> neutrino in neutron decay >> >> It's different for each nucleus. Many times the energies are millions of >> electron volts. There is, however, at least one isotope which emits a >> "gamma ray" of just a few electron volts, it's actually in the >> ultraviolet region of the spectrum. > > Thanks for this information. Of course, I do not believe or accept quark theory, > so that part is irrelevant to me. > > I am hoping someone in sci.physics has enough physics knowledge to be able to give > a description of the amount of energy involved in a typical alpha emission, a > typical beta emmission, a typical gamma ray emission and a typical antineutrino > emission with the fact that alpha and beta have rest masses when the last two have none. > In other words, Weak Nuclear force is a mirror reflection of the fact that the Coulomb > force is a variable force law ranging from solid body rotation all the way down to 1/R^2. > > Are you able to give me a rough number estimate of the energies of these four? As I mentioned, its different for each nuclide. Usually millions of electron volts but there is a wide range. Google should find a good table of nuclides that lists decay energy and decay mode.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ndu186$st$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567597 |
On 4/2/2016 10:54 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Neutron decay is the fourth. > > AP > Neutron decay is beta decay. Eactly the same as a nuclear beta decay. In a nuclear beta decay, one of the neutrons in the nucleus is converting to a proton, emitting an electron and an antineutrino. Exactly like free neutron decay. Might want to refresh yourself on some basics. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 10:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: forces of physics as one "variable force of EM" Re: why so many scientists and mathematicians opt for flash fame |
| Message-ID | <ndu0s9$st$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #567525 |
On 4/2/2016 1:26 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 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. Alpha and gamma decays have nothing to do with the weak nuclear interaction. The only kind of decay that has to do with the weak nuclear interaction is beta decay. Alpha decay is through the strong nuclear interaction, and gamma decay is through the electromagnetic interaction. I think you have some catching up to do on the basics. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 08:00 -0700 |
| Subject | gi'me a u. |
| Message-ID | <7e5d0092-0040-4916-9147-4541bbbd9f71@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #566948 |
it is probably akin to plasma physics, viz u.c.s.d and upsalla.u > > Coulomb the has variable strengths from solid- body to 1/r to 1/r^2, > > can we find this variability in Weak Nuclear force? > > > > AP > > > > You have some catching up to do. It's been proposed since 1967 that the > weak and electromagnetic interactions are not separate but are in fact > one unified interaction called the electroweak. The key experimental > validation of that theory was in 1973, and the proponents of electroweak > theory were awarded Nobel prizes for the work in 1979.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-09 21:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: gi'me a u. |
| Message-ID | <1f15d248-8f5c-4485-9b25-714a01f3df07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #568282 |
since, of course, almost all of Universe is plasma > it is probably akin to plasma physics, > viz u.c.s.d and upsalla.u > > > > Coulomb the has variable strengths from solid- body to 1/r to 1/r^2, > > > can we find this variability in Weak Nuclear force?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web