Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #571393 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-18 16:05 -0500 |
| Last post | 2016-04-22 16:51 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 175 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 16:05 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-18 21:21 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-18 22:32 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-18 15:57 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 21:07 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-19 13:05 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 13:28 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:59 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Boris Mohar <borism_void_@sympatico.ca> - 2016-04-19 06:53 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 06:34 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 07:01 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-19 13:43 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 13:49 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-19 23:10 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-04-20 03:15 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:05 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 06:15 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:27 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:44 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 13:40 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:47 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:57 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:08 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 13:41 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 10:14 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 13:52 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 14:22 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 22:16 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 08:55 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 12:14 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 10:11 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-20 15:40 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 10:07 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-20 13:25 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 02:40 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-21 11:44 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 04:59 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 11:32 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:35 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 12:56 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:41 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-21 20:30 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:47 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-22 07:20 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:25 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:18 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-22 07:26 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:35 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 10:33 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-19 13:47 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:26 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 13:57 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 12:02 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:18 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-19 19:39 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:55 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 13:30 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 08:47 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 18:43 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 13:54 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-19 23:21 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 08:08 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-19 22:21 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 15:31 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:57 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-19 07:36 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 11:07 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-21 20:32 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 04:34 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:09 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:28 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:32 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:33 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:30 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:28 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 06:41 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:50 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:04 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:09 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:15 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 12:36 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:22 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 14:43 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-04-22 10:20 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 12:42 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 07:47 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-22 07:25 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:27 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:39 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 17:00 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 10:12 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 17:22 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 10:32 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 12:54 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 10:57 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:27 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:41 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 15:00 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 12:05 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:51 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 12:40 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 10:46 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:22 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 21:13 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:08 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-24 23:55 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 21:27 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-25 01:56 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:58 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:55 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:50 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 04:58 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 07:02 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:12 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 05:39 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 14:46 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 13:48 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 23:39 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 14:11 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 16:58 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 06:39 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 04:44 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-25 07:01 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 11:52 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 21:37 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-22 14:53 -0400
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-24 13:52 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-25 08:56 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-25 16:51 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-25 20:24 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-26 14:41 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 10:09 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-27 07:29 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 09:43 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-27 20:50 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:05 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-30 06:31 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:42 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 12:38 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-04 05:26 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 10:55 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-28 19:39 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 10:35 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-29 08:58 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-30 06:37 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:43 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 12:38 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-30 06:40 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 08:44 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-30 07:02 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 12:39 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 13:15 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-05-03 14:32 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 05:35 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-05-04 05:30 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 12:24 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 11:27 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-05-04 13:31 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:12 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-27 07:48 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-27 15:25 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:28 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-26 19:44 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-27 07:21 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-27 14:41 +0000
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-27 12:29 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-27 10:41 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:22 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-22 07:34 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:42 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:14 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 09:50 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 08:06 -0700
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-22 10:16 -0500
Re: The search for hidden dimensions comes up empty again moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-22 16:51 +0000
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 06:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfkvlu$1vkm$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #572980 |
On 4/24/2016 6:58 PM, john wrote: > Odd > You need reading comprehension help > I notice you ignored my question. Is "boundary" a word that refers to something real or not? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 04:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2226032-a0c9-4622-8b6f-8cdcf58dcd54@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573049 |
Odd You have already told me that Physics subverts words to Mean what they want- so YOU tell me what you mean by "boundaries ". Remember- Helium leaks out of EVERYTHING, so it doesn't have boundaries
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 07:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfl0uv$17u$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573050 |
On 4/25/2016 6:44 AM, john wrote: > Odd > You have already told me > that Physics subverts words to > Mean what they want- But not in this case. > so YOU tell me what you mean by > "boundaries ". I've already TOLD you. Can you please go back and remind yourself how boundary is replied, rather than asking everyone to repeat something you ignored the first time? > Remember- Helium leaks out of EVERYTHING, > so it doesn't have boundaries I agree that helium doesn't have a boundary. Doesn't meet the definition of boundary. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d13a1df9-5084-4bbe-9abd-1e3b5bf1db07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #572479 |
BJ quacked Give up, John. I've tried to pound understanding into Odd's pointy little head but it's a hopeless task. Ain't gonna happen. He just comes here to debate. He just loves an argument because it makes him feel superior. Same has Hardblow wishes people would worship him. ------------- Obsessed groupie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 21:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <571ad1e4$0$25216$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #572484 |
On 04/22/2016 02:52 PM, HVAC wrote: > BJ quacked > Give up, John. > I've tried to pound understanding into Odd's pointy little head but it's > a hopeless task. Ain't gonna happen. He just comes here to debate. He > just loves an argument because it makes him feel superior. Same has > Hardblow wishes people would worship him. > ------------- > > Obsessed groupie > I was talking to John. Why are you stalking me? Are you hoping your cyberbullying will result in my suicide? Dream on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobodyxx@gmail> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-22 14:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <571a7332$0$46802$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #572448 |
On 04/22/2016 01:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/22/2016 12:12 PM, john wrote: >> Michael >> Look in a f-en microscope. >> >> There are NO 2D surfaces >> > > There's that boundary between the specimen and the glass slide underneath. > What do you call that, John? John you need to get your mind right! If Odd can IMAGINE a 2D surface betweent a specimen and a glass slide then it exists. Period. And more important, it does not matter if the glass slide is not actually smooth and planar but is a 3D structure, since we are only considering a grid laid out upon the bumply surface, 2 dimensions is enough to specify any point on it! Therefore it is a 2D surface and exists. The warpage of space does not mean more dimensions exist. Especially if we say they don't. And that makes you wrong and it means Odd wins the Debate again! It must be hell being so competent and well liked!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-24 13:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfj4kd$1bb3$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #572485 |
On 4/22/2016 1:53 PM, benj wrote: > On 04/22/2016 01:40 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/22/2016 12:12 PM, john wrote: >>> Michael >>> Look in a f-en microscope. >>> >>> There are NO 2D surfaces >>> >> >> There's that boundary between the specimen and the glass slide >> underneath. >> What do you call that, John? > > John you need to get your mind right! If Odd can IMAGINE a 2D surface > betweent a specimen and a glass slide then it exists. Period. It's called a boundary. Is a boundary real or not, Ben? Imaginary or real? > > And more important, it does not matter if the glass slide is not > actually smooth and planar but is a 3D structure, Who cares. The boundary between France and Germany is not straight and linear, either. Does that make the boundary unreal? > since we are only > considering a grid laid out upon the bumply surface, 2 dimensions is > enough to specify any point on it! Therefore it is a 2D surface and > exists. Exactly! That's what 2D means! > The warpage of space does not mean more dimensions exist. Right! > Especially if we say they don't. > > And that makes you wrong and it means Odd wins the Debate again! > It must be hell being so competent and well liked! I don't give a damn about that. Are you feeling beat up or something? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <711a9731-2c5c-4730-b7c8-d1bd1ff34451@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #572417 |
On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 1:01:09 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> Assertion is not a valid argument, Ken. Where is your proof that space > >> and time are separate? > > >Where is your proof that space and time are not separate? I look at my > >watch and see the passage of time withput involving space. > > Is your watch moving at relativistic speeds relative to your face? Very > unlikely, so you won't be able to notice the interaction between space > and time. > > Meanwhile, while you were looking whether Mickey's big hand and little > hand, muons were screaming by (and through) you at nearly c. Despite > the fact that they were created high in the atmosphere and live for only > 2.2 microseconds, they were able to reach you due to how space and time > interacted to dilate the time/foreshorten the distance (depending on the > reference frame you choose) and they reach you. If they carried little > watches, you most definitely could see the interaction of space and time > on them. Idiot....2.2 us on a moving fast moving muon clock is corresponded to gamma*2.2 us on the earth clock.....that's why the fast moving muon is able to reach the earth surface with 2.2 us on its clock. What this means is that a *us* interval of clock time does not represent a universal interval of TIME.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nflhub$bae$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #573108 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> Meanwhile, while you were looking whether Mickey's big hand and little >> hand, muons were screaming by (and through) you at nearly c. Despite >> the fact that they were created high in the atmosphere and live for only >> 2.2 microseconds, they were able to reach you due to how space and time >> interacted to dilate the time/foreshorten the distance (depending on the >> reference frame you choose) and they reach you. If they carried little >> watches, you most definitely could see the interaction of space and time >> on them. >Idiot....2.2 us on a moving fast moving muon clock is corresponded to gamma >*2.2 us on the earth clock.....that's why the fast moving muon is able to >reach the earth surface with 2.2 us on its clock. From the earth reference frame, that is true. However, from the muon's reference frame, the earth is seen as a thin pancake and it has to travel only a short distance to reach the ground from the upper atmosphere, so it can do so in only 2.2 uS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-25 20:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67e00f34-7490-41f6-b9c0-b27c0e15ae28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573118 |
On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:51:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> Meanwhile, while you were looking whether Mickey's big hand and little > >> hand, muons were screaming by (and through) you at nearly c. Despite > >> the fact that they were created high in the atmosphere and live for only > >> 2.2 microseconds, they were able to reach you due to how space and time > >> interacted to dilate the time/foreshorten the distance (depending on the > >> reference frame you choose) and they reach you. If they carried little > >> watches, you most definitely could see the interaction of space and time > >> on them. > > >Idiot....2.2 us on a moving fast moving muon clock is corresponded to gamma > >*2.2 us on the earth clock.....that's why the fast moving muon is able to > >reach the earth surface with 2.2 us on its clock. > > From the earth reference frame, that is true. However, from the muon's > reference frame, the earth is seen as a thin pancake and it has to travel > only a short distance to reach the ground from the upper atmosphere, so it > can do so in only 2.2 uS. No....from the muon's point of view the earth looks the same round ball and the muon itself is rushing very fast toward it. The 2.2 us on the muon clock is able to reach the earth's surface before it decays. There is no rest frame for any object in our universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 14:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nfnuni$83u$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #573306 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, April 25, 2016 at 12:51:56 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >Idiot....2.2 us on a moving fast moving muon clock is corresponded to gamma >> >*2.2 us on the earth clock.....that's why the fast moving muon is able to >> >reach the earth surface with 2.2 us on its clock. >> >> From the earth reference frame, that is true. However, from the muon's >> reference frame, the earth is seen as a thin pancake and it has to travel >> only a short distance to reach the ground from the upper atmosphere, so it >> can do so in only 2.2 uS. >No....from the muon's point of view the earth looks the same round ball >and the muon itself is rushing very fast toward it. The 2.2 us on the >muon clock is able to reach the earth's surface before it decays. SR predicts length contraction for anything moving relative to it. So, as far as the muon is concerned, the earth is approaching it at nearly c. It sees the earth as highly flattened in the direction of motion as the length contraction is only in this direction. This is how the muon can reach the ground in only 2.2 uS, which at c is only about 660 meters. To the muon, the distance between the upper atmosphere and the ground really is only 660 meters or so, that is how much the earth is compressed in its frame. In the uncompressed reference we on earth see, this distance is many kilometers. You really need to learn about SR someday, rather than making the same mistakes over and over again. I don't know why you refuse to learn SR. > There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. That statement is false, by definition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-26 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfo0bc$sj9$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573387 |
On 4/26/2016 9:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. > That statement is false, by definition. Ken Seto believes that an object can still tell it's in motion even in its own rest frame. This is why he says that in the muon's rest frame the muon is STILL moving toward the earth. I would challenge Ken to tell me how he knows he's moving right now, and how fast he's going. He won't be able to tell you how fast he's going. He won't even be able to tell you why he thinks he's moving right now. He'll just assert (without argument) that he is. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a4db1606-3d4a-42d9-81b0-491f6760663f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573399 |
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:09:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/26/2016 9:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> >There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. > > That statement is false, by definition. > > Ken Seto believes that an object can still tell it's in motion even in > its own rest frame. This is why he says that in the muon's rest frame > the muon is STILL moving toward the earth. If I run toward you at constant speed, I certainly can tell that I am the one who is doing the moving. > > I would challenge Ken to tell me how he knows he's moving right now, and > how fast he's going. He won't be able to tell you how fast he's going. > He won't even be able to tell you why he thinks he's moving right now. > He'll just assert (without argument) that he is. I can measure my state of absolute motion wrt light in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 09:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nfqj5e$t0r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573697 |
On 4/27/2016 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:09:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 9:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. >>> That statement is false, by definition. >> >> Ken Seto believes that an object can still tell it's in motion even in >> its own rest frame. This is why he says that in the muon's rest frame >> the muon is STILL moving toward the earth. > > If I run toward you at constant speed, I certainly can tell that I am the one who is doing the moving. Can you? What if you and I are both on a surface that is moving in the opposite direction? Then, no matter that you're running, you are motionless and I'm the one that's moving. >> >> I would challenge Ken to tell me how he knows he's moving right now, and >> how fast he's going. He won't be able to tell you how fast he's going. >> He won't even be able to tell you why he thinks he's moving right now. >> He'll just assert (without argument) that he is. > > I can measure my state of absolute motion wrt light in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf And what's the result? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e3567309-1174-4f55-b1ac-48de0316e2fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573700 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:42:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/27/2016 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:09:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/26/2016 9:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>> There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. > >>> That statement is false, by definition. > >> > >> Ken Seto believes that an object can still tell it's in motion even in > >> its own rest frame. This is why he says that in the muon's rest frame > >> the muon is STILL moving toward the earth. > > > > If I run toward you at constant speed, I certainly can tell that I am the one who is doing the moving. > > Can you? What if you and I are both on a surface that is moving in the > opposite direction? Then, no matter that you're running, you are > motionless and I'm the one that's moving. I am not motionless.....in fact every object in the universe is in a state of motion. > > >> > >> I would challenge Ken to tell me how he knows he's moving right now, and > >> how fast he's going. He won't be able to tell you how fast he's going. > >> He won't even be able to tell you why he thinks he's moving right now. > >> He'll just assert (without argument) that he is. > > > > I can measure my state of absolute motion wrt light in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf > > And what's the result? read the paper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nft8rs$1q5s$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #573864 |
On 4/27/2016 10:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:42:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/27/2016 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:09:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2016 9:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>> There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. >>>>> That statement is false, by definition. >>>> >>>> Ken Seto believes that an object can still tell it's in motion even in >>>> its own rest frame. This is why he says that in the muon's rest frame >>>> the muon is STILL moving toward the earth. >>> >>> If I run toward you at constant speed, I certainly can tell that I am the one who is doing the moving. >> >> Can you? What if you and I are both on a surface that is moving in the >> opposite direction? Then, no matter that you're running, you are >> motionless and I'm the one that's moving. > > I am not motionless.....in fact every object in the universe is in a state of motion. HOW DO YOU KNOW? If the surface you are running on is headed in the opposite direction, you might very well be motionless, even though you are running. HOW DO YOU KNOW this is not true? >> >>>> >>>> I would challenge Ken to tell me how he knows he's moving right now, and >>>> how fast he's going. He won't be able to tell you how fast he's going. >>>> He won't even be able to tell you why he thinks he's moving right now. >>>> He'll just assert (without argument) that he is. >>> >>> I can measure my state of absolute motion wrt light in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf >> >> And what's the result? > > read the paper. There's no experimental result in the paper. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 06:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d53938c9-78fe-48b8-ab47-ac47f2dbfe4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #573959 |
On Thursday, April 28, 2016 at 11:05:38 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/27/2016 10:50 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:42:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/27/2016 9:29 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 11:09:37 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 4/26/2016 9:41 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>>>> There is no rest frame for any object in our universe. > >>>>> That statement is false, by definition. > >>>> > >>>> Ken Seto believes that an object can still tell it's in motion even in > >>>> its own rest frame. This is why he says that in the muon's rest frame > >>>> the muon is STILL moving toward the earth. > >>> > >>> If I run toward you at constant speed, I certainly can tell that I am the one who is doing the moving. > >> > >> Can you? What if you and I are both on a surface that is moving in the > >> opposite direction? Then, no matter that you're running, you are > >> motionless and I'm the one that's moving. > > > > I am not motionless.....in fact every object in the universe is in a state of motion. > > HOW DO YOU KNOW? If the surface you are running on is headed in the > opposite direction, you might very well be motionless, even though you > are running. HOW DO YOU KNOW this is not true? Hey idiot.....if I am running, I am not motionless. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-30 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Kqadnf4oUqOuK7nKnZ2dnUU7-Q2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #574357 |
On 4/30/16 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > Hey idiot.....if I am running, I am not motionless. Gee you are stupid. Whether you are in motion or not, Seto, depends *strictly* on the perspective of the observer. All motion is relative. Even Galileo new this. -- 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 | 2016-05-02 12:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ng83af$j4r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #574357 |
On 4/30/2016 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: ? > > Hey idiot.....if I am running, I am not motionless. Gee you are stupid. > Don't be silly, Ken. If you were SITTING on a surface traveling 10mph to the west, then you are moving because the surface is. But now if you are RUNNING at 10mph to the east on a surface that is traveling 10mph to the west, then you would be motionless, right? If you swim upstream at 3 mph in a river that is flowing 3mph downstream, you won't move relative to the riverbanks, right? So even though you are swimming, you are motionless, right? So you see, even if you are running or swimming, you can't be sure you're moving. Or are you one of these people that thinks the Earth's surface is motionless? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-04 05:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d97b2ce3-3bba-4f1b-8a0d-9635fba95718@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #574875 |
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 1:38:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/30/2016 8:31 AM, kenseto wrote: > ? > > > > Hey idiot.....if I am running, I am not motionless. Gee you are stupid. > > > > Don't be silly, Ken. If you were SITTING on a surface traveling 10mph to > the west, then you are moving because the surface is. > But now if you are RUNNING at 10mph to the east on a surface that is > traveling 10mph to the west, then you would be motionless, right? No idiot.....you are running means that you have individual motion. > > If you swim upstream at 3 mph in a river that is flowing 3mph > downstream, you won't move relative to the riverbanks, right? So even > though you are swimming, you are motionless, right? No how can I be motionless when I am swimming. I think you are confused....you are talking about relative motion. In my theory: relative motion is the vector difference of individual motions. > > So you see, even if you are running or swimming, you can't be sure > you're moving. Idiot the acts of running or swimming means motion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web