Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #590892 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-26 21:25 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 21:25 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:49 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 13:42 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 09:29 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 15:08 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:37 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:04 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 20:48 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 05:04 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:12 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-28 19:43 -0400
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 14:16 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:35 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-28 18:02 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:27 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:28 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 05:20 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 06:30 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 15:18 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 08:23 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 10:49 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-29 18:12 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom brandonahenley9@gmail.com - 2016-07-29 12:08 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 19:37 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-30 05:52 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 05:07 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-07-30 17:12 -0400
Processes that _consume_ energy. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 11:57 -0700
Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 12:19 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-05 19:51 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 13:01 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:36 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:28 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 18:36 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 01:18 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 20:45 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 13:49 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 07:05 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 11:38 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 11:51 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 11:59 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 22:31 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 16:09 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 00:01 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-06 17:10 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 05:15 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 05:38 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:23 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 22:44 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 16:58 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 01:48 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 19:03 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 03:58 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 00:57 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 07:54 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 15:24 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-08 15:15 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:29 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 14:47 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 17:13 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 19:13 -0400
waves-ies noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-09 13:24 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 13:24 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:32 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 06:45 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 09:01 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 08:05 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:30 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-07 13:32 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 10:19 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-07 22:24 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-08 18:00 -0400
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-08 15:07 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 23:10 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-06 01:00 +0000
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 15:16 -0500
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 16:12 -0400
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-08-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-05 19:23 -0400
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:48 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 12:54 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 13:21 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-31 23:01 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 06:26 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:54 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-01 14:32 +0000
waves alfvenic, slow, fast, nedium noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:47 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-29 09:06 -0500
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-27 19:05 +0000
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:22 -0500
dictions of pre-that-and-this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 17:22 -0700
Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:04 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom B Gates <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-07-28 19:39 -0400
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:12 -0700
Re: Predictions of Galaxy Model for the Atom Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-07-29 12:04 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnfs3q$pum$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591134 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael >">HOW does something GET rotating >>without applying torque? >Asked and answered. " >Sorry- what is your answer here? See my and Bodkin's earlier responses. Particularly Odd's cars/bungee cord example. Off center encounters in a system can provide angular momentum to components of the system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e521c4a6-b1db-49aa-b90a-5737c1290d1a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591141 |
So however the energy came about, the RESULT is angular momentum. The "where did the energy/torque come from" is moot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 10:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nnfttb$17t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591142 |
On 7/29/2016 10:23 AM, john wrote: > So however the energy came about, > the RESULT is angular momentum. > The "where did the energy/torque come > from" is moot? > John, please read my example again. The point, should I need to hammer it in, is that freshman physics students know that two cars traveling IN STRAIGHT LINES in opposite lanes of a highway ALREADY HAVE angular momentum, even though there is no circular rotation. The addition of the bungee cord to produce the circular rotation does NOT change the angular momentum. It's the same after as it was before. Another way of saying this is that the bungee applied no torque. The same thing is true for gas clouds in galactic formation. Two gas clouds approaching each other in STRAIGHT LINE travel already have angular momentum. When they start to apply forces to each other gravitationally, this will introduce rotation but does not change the angular momentum. That is, no new angular momentum is produced when the gas clouds start to rotate circularly. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nng69p$2ms$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591142 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >So however the energy came about, >the RESULT is angular momentum. >The "where did the energy/torque come >from" is moot? Not moot but already explained. But the important point is that a rotating galaxy needed to get angular momentum ONCE and then has it forever with no need for additional torques or anything to change it or keep it rotating. A precessing anything needs a CONSTANT application of a torque to CONSTANTLY change its angular momentum. A non-starter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | brandonahenley9@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <576b90b1-4d6f-490c-918b-614d6a0aaedd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591169 |
sounds pre-alfvenic waveform; plasma is 99.99 hundredths of every thing, so that gravity is just a precessionary (perhaps) effect > But the important point is that a rotating galaxy needed to get angular momentum > ONCE and then has it forever with no need for additional torques or anything to > change it or keep it rotating. A precessing anything needs a CONSTANT application > of a torque to CONSTANTLY change its angular momentum. A non-starter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-29 19:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d3511df-c203-4666-8d0f-33545edbbac8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591182 |
The only way for stuff in atoms and galaxies to NOT run out of energy is for everything to run the shortest possible repeating pathways. This is accomplished with the 1 rotation/2 precession standing wave. The torque that Michael and Odd are so worried about only needs to happen once- to both rotate and precess- after which you have a standing wave that feeds on itself and is extremely permanent- an atom. Analyze the star spectra with disc precession in mind, and see what the computer thinks
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 05:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nnhfb6$35s$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591239 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >The only way for stuff in atoms and >galaxies to NOT run out of energy >is for everything to run the >shortest possible repeating >pathways. No. You don't NEED energy for something moving in a straight line to keep moving in a straight line. You don't NEED energy for something rotating to continue rotating. Like a planet rotating or one orbiting its star. >The torque that Michael and Odd are >so worried about only needs to >happen once- to both rotate and >precess- after which you have >a standing wave that feeds on itself >and is extremely permanent- an atom. Nope. No amount of whining "My spinny things don't need to obey the laws of physics!" will change the fact that a precessing spinny thing needs a constant application of a varying torque in order to continue to move that way. Learn some simple physics. Subcategory rotational motion. >Analyze the star spectra with disc >precession in mind, and see what the >computer thinks ...and we will find that the only use for precession is feeding your ravenous OCD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 05:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a272a40b-fd66-46b4-9a11-97e6b07e48e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591239 |
john The only way for stuff in atoms and galaxies to NOT run out of energy ------- Energy doesn't run out. Ever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-30 17:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <579d185e$0$63400$b1db1813$145976f0@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #591263 |
On 7/30/2016 8:07 AM, HVAC wrote: > john > The only way for stuff in atoms and > galaxies to NOT run out of energy > ------- > > Energy doesn't run out. Ever > And the way you know this is? Oh yeah, your "superpowers". Must be wonderful to be a superhero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 11:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <0391560d-9add-4840-8705-7c324adc94e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591263 |
Jeff-Relf.Me Mr. hVac wrote: > Energy doesn't run out. Ever The _quality_ of energy degrades, spontaneously, per the _second_ law of Thermodynamics. "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ) is diminishing. Google "Heat Death of the Universe" and Google says: ＜＜ The heat death of the universe is a historically suggested theory of the ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain processes that _consume_ energy ( including computation and life ). ＞＞ ----------- Energy doesn't run out. Ever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 12:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <08313541-2033-4664-accb-7a68a0dcdfb5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591983 |
Michael and Odd We're trying to figure out MATTER, you 'tards! So, how does speculating on an invisible, new kind of matter help to do that, you tards? It's a huge step backward, you tards!! Just admit that galactic rotation curves killed suck gravity, for cripes sakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 19:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <no2qnn$4cv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #591986 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >Michael and Odd >We're trying to figure out MATTER, >you 'tards! I believe I know what matter is. >So, how does speculating on an invisible, >new kind of matter help >to do that, you tards? Ummm, because invisible heavy stuff works a hell of a lot better than spinny things that violate the laws of physics? Hmm, so you haven't found a 5 year old yet. You have trouble with "invisible heavy stuff". So John, maybe you don't believe in "invisible"? Do you believe in air? Or maybe you have trouble with "heavy". Do you believe in lead? >It's a huge step backward, >you tards!! Yes, believing that galaxies and atoms are precessing spinny things sure would be a step backwards. Fortunately, only you believe in that crap. >Just admit that galactic >rotation curves killed suck gravity, >for cripes sakes. Just admit LeSage gravitation died a couple of centuries ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 13:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <e826904d-71ee-413a-beb7-2040b6c443d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #591993 |
Speculating that a WHOLE NEW CLASS of matter exists, composed of NOT FERMIONS OR BARYONS in order to explain one particular aspect of our matter, is what's retarded. Tard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 15:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <no2tc7$1h71$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #591995 |
On 8/5/2016 3:01 PM, john wrote: > Speculating that a WHOLE NEW CLASS > of matter exists, > composed of NOT FERMIONS OR BARYONS > in order to explain one particular > aspect of our matter, > is what's retarded. > Tard > Why is that retarded? Remember that at the turn of the century, only protons and electrons were known. The idea of a neutral particle in the atom made no sense. Hence neutrons were a completely different class of particle. Was proposing a neutron retarded? Why or why not? Then there was the neutrino, a particle that was neutral but didn't seem to interact much at all, completely unlike nucleons or electrons, which were the only classes of particles known at the time. Was proposing a neutrino retarded? Why or why not? Then there were pions, which were lighter than nucleons but heavier than electrons, which were proposed to explain what held the neutrons in the nucleus, completely unlike electrons, nucleons, or neutrinos. Was proposing a pion retarded? Why or why not? Then there were muons, which were middle weight but not pions, and seemed to be just like electrons but just an older sister. No reason to think there was duplication of particles like electrons. Was proposing a muon retarded? Why or why not? Explain to me why those new classes of things are not retarded, but this new class of things is. John, if you're going to have a thought on a matter, at least be CONSISTENT in your thinking and not just a jumbled mess. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 15:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <09f696e3-c1d3-4d3b-8276-670b8d167f0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592008 |
Off beat said "Explain to me why those new classes of things are not retarded, but this new class of things is. John, if you're going to have a thought on a matter, at least be CONSISTENT in your thinking and not just a jumbled mess" You seem not to be able to distinguish between new members of a class and a whole new class. That's okay- I'm used to your fractured thought. I CONSISTENTLY say that DM is BS. Why would you reject the fractal notion that matter might have underlying structure that has the same form as it does? Like Russian Dolls? Does logicity assend you, lil pucker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 18:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <no37tr$k9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #592019 |
On 8/5/2016 5:28 PM, john wrote: > Off beat said > > "Explain to me why those new classes of things are not retarded, but this > new class of things is. > > John, if you're going to have a thought on a matter, at least be > CONSISTENT in your thinking and not just a jumbled mess" > > You seem not to be able to distinguish > between new members of a class > and a whole new class. Neutrons where new members of WHAT CLASS in 1930? Hmmm? Neutrinos were new members of WHAT CLASS in 1930? Hmmm? In both cases, the ONLY CLASSES of particles known were protons and electrons, and beta, alpha, and gamma radiations. So what classes of things did neutrons and neutrinos fall into? Try to think consistently and coherently. Go ahead. Try. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 01:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <no3dt3$te8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #592019 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >You seem not to be able to distinguish >between new members of a class >and a whole new class. >That's okay- I'm used to your fractured thought. Waitaminute again! You complain about Odd believing in a whole new class of something (like neutrons and neutrinos were once), yet you want to create an entire new class of stuff at a lower fractal level? And another below that? And another, on to infinity?? You don't see the hypocrisy of that????? >Why would you reject the >fractal notion that matter might >have underlying structure that has the >same form as it does? Like Russian >Dolls? Because it is so freakin' retarded!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-05 20:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <f6dc8a39-d8ff-454d-a72f-69f4a828c1aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592045 |
Michael Wake up. DM is retarded. BH by grav "collapse" is retarded. Galactic rotation curves falsified YOUR physics a long time ago. You are just too stubborn to admit it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 13:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <no4psd$ik9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #592053 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >Michael >Wake up. >DM is retarded. Not as retarded as precessing spinny things! >BH by grav "collapse" is retarded. Not as retarded as your LeSage Gravity! >Galactic rotation curves falsified YOUR >physics a long time ago. Speaking of "a long time ago", your LeSage Gravity has been known to be a failure for a couple of centuries! >You are just too stubborn to admit it. Sounds more like you. So when are you going to give me an answer how your retarded spinny thing galaxies don't violate half of the laws of physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-06 07:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Processes that _consume_ energy. |
| Message-ID | <cb859f33-1025-43a0-b959-27f070cfe366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #592071 |
Mickey "So when are you going to give me an answer how your retarded spinny thing galaxies don't violate half of the laws of physics? " Galactic rotation curves FALSIFIED the "law" of gravity. How many other "laws of physics" are just plain wrong? The galaxy is at the Center of a spherical Bi-layered halo of old globular clusters- one layer flowing one way and the second flowing another. How do your "laws" explain that? You don't have a sniff, you poor little mutt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web