Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #595567 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-01 17:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-11 14:41 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 355 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 17:06 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-02 01:56 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 21:26 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 21:48 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 04:44 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-02 13:46 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:47 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 07:02 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 08:08 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 11:17 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:53 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:48 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:40 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:06 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-02 13:40 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 08:18 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-02 17:04 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 15:15 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-03 04:13 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 03:30 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-04 03:14 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 20:39 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 10:03 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 13:26 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 15:34 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:30 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:56 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:28 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 10:23 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 12:23 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:45 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:36 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 12:40 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-03 07:34 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 08:49 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 09:31 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 09:59 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 11:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 11:34 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 11:39 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 11:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-04 19:30 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 12:34 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 16:32 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 13:23 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 15:47 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-05 16:26 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-06 09:32 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-06 11:24 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-07 13:23 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 07:41 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:29 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 08:59 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 11:02 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 11:03 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 09:30 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 09:33 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 10:44 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 15:21 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 09:15 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 07:39 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 08:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 10:20 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-08 17:23 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 11:08 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-08 15:11 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 10:16 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 08:22 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 08:38 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:57 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 11:55 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 11:06 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 14:20 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 16:30 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 14:57 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:32 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 17:33 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:57 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:00 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:18 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 22:05 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:15 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 02:52 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:24 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 23:54 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 08:15 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 23:19 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:31 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-13 23:59 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 21:48 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 05:14 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 17:50 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 00:53 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-15 21:54 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 04:16 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:00 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-16 21:41 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 20:57 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-17 01:48 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 07:00 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Sergoi <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-14 12:10 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 14:35 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 15:47 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 08:30 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 00:56 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-09-17 08:46 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 06:04 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 06:21 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 06:32 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 07:33 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 07:39 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:40 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:32 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:33 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:26 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 00:09 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:19 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 22:07 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:16 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 23:25 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 09:09 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:33 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:29 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-13 09:33 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 20:18 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 07:24 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 00:46 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 20:12 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 21:04 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 21:48 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:05 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-13 09:02 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-08 22:11 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 15:41 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-08 19:55 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:35 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 05:46 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 13:36 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 08:46 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 06:54 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 09:33 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 17:45 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 17:05 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 15:24 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-09 22:51 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 16:09 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 06:15 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:08 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:22 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 14:04 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 06:14 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-09 20:15 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:05 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 16:12 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 18:26 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 16:46 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 20:06 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 03:04 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-12 10:01 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 10:14 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 18:03 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 13:24 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-12 11:37 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 11:56 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 11:59 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 15:34 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-12 15:15 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 18:17 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 20:30 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 18:43 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:02 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-13 02:13 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-13 02:09 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 23:38 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-13 04:40 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:19 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 07:27 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-13 09:24 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 15:05 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 20:06 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-09-14 05:15 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 11:59 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:45 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 14:05 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 13:08 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 15:36 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 14:16 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 07:56 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 06:47 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 20:04 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 07:06 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 00:22 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 12:55 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 06:18 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 08:45 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 14:31 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 08:23 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 08:58 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 09:48 -0700
tautochrononology noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:03 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:32 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 10:57 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 11:01 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:10 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:15 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 16:01 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 14:07 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-09-15 12:32 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 02:25 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 07:00 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 11:58 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:43 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:46 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:47 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-13 09:19 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 22:11 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-12 21:19 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-12 23:29 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-13 09:12 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-13 19:38 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 09:54 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 10:11 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-09-14 23:50 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 06:30 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-13 09:10 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 23:12 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:12 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 05:51 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:32 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 06:36 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 06:44 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:53 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-22 20:15 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 15:58 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:51 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 06:56 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 07:05 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 09:49 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:25 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:10 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 11:51 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 12:12 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 00:33 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 18:20 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 13:59 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 06:19 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:19 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 06:30 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:33 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 13:00 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 06:37 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 07:46 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 16:08 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 09:35 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 19:39 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 07:42 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 08:27 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 15:28 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 10:59 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-22 19:14 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 12:57 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 07:42 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 09:53 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 08:13 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 17:04 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 18:09 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 19:10 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 15:12 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 08:20 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 08:28 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> - 2016-09-24 08:57 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:25 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 19:08 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:52 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 23:47 +0000
sh*t *p or p*t *p noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 10:26 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 02:30 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 06:25 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:37 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:01 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 14:38 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 01:44 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-29 03:26 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 11:32 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 12:01 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 14:08 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 15:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 17:10 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 13:55 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:00 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-28 23:26 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 11:50 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:24 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-24 19:05 +0000
spins in zpinz noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 16:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 13:18 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 08:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-21 15:54 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:41 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 08:54 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 09:44 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:23 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 16:01 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 09:54 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:26 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:20 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:10 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:18 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 08:42 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:19 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 15:49 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-16 17:14 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 08:10 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 11:22 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 10:38 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 07:34 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 06:35 -0700
the little sEEds in that guy noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-09-16 13:07 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-16 13:20 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 09:03 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 12:51 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-07 18:57 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 12:29 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 10:40 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 13:09 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 10:30 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 10:26 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 13:42 -0500
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 16:44 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 20:11 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 07:33 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 07:33 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 08:15 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-05 09:18 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-09-05 18:11 -0400
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 12:41 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal Earle Jones27 <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 22:49 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 14:08 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 07:43 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 21:09 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 15:48 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-10 15:56 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-10 23:56 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 06:59 -0700
Re: Vortices in the subfractal moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-12 00:31 +0000
Re: Vortices in the subfractal noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-09-11 14:41 -0700
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 18:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr4oqa$ohi$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596431 |
On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: > So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no longer > represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't > think that has been discarded with age. And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. Try again. Or try reading a book. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 22:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d75f6d$0$1233$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596627 |
On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no longer >> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >> think that has been discarded with age. > > And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. > Try again. Or try reading a book. If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my statement is incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or are they just comic books? Methinks so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 21:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr7nie$1ecb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596747 |
On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no longer >>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >>> think that has been discarded with age. >> >> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. >> Try again. Or try reading a book. > > If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my statement is > incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and > they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or are > they just comic books? Methinks so. > Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the Meaning of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that physicists are right. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 23:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d771cc$0$62116$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596753 |
On 9/12/2016 10:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no >>>> longer >>>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >>>> think that has been discarded with age. >>> >>> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. >>> Try again. Or try reading a book. >> >> If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my statement is >> incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and >> they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or are >> they just comic books? Methinks so. >> > > Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the Meaning > of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. > > I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that > physicists are right. Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills fame)? You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of it? Do you think that because it was years ago that all of physics is now new and the "trinity" has a new description in your religion that everyone must now believe and worship? You are really a piece of work, Boinker. I'm HERE! YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIND IN ERROR WITH WHAT I SAID. You know you won't. I say you can't. I say all you know is propaganda that you can repeat as tell others to believe. When do you ask for the offering?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr91b5$1g8o$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596764 |
On 9/12/2016 10:25 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no >>>>> longer >>>>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >>>>> think that has been discarded with age. >>>> >>>> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. >>>> Try again. Or try reading a book. >>> >>> If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my statement is >>> incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and >>> they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or are >>> they just comic books? Methinks so. >>> >> >> Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the Meaning >> of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. >> >> I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that >> physicists are right. > > > Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in > Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills > fame)? You took a year of graduate level quantum mechanics and you can't even remember the name of the collaborating duo? Maybe you don't remember what you were taught. What I'm telling you is what I've read recently. > You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of > it? Do you think that because it was years ago that all of physics is > now new and the "trinity" has a new description in your religion that > everyone must now believe and worship? You are really a piece of work, > Boinker. > > I'm HERE! YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIND IN ERROR WITH WHAT I SAID. > You know you won't. I say you can't. I say all you know is propaganda > that you can repeat as tell others to believe. When do you ask for the > offering? > Wavefunctions are not waves of probability. That's not even how they are defined. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 19:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d88cee$0$62105$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596800 |
On 9/13/2016 10:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:25 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 10:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no >>>>>> longer >>>>>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >>>>>> think that has been discarded with age. >>>>> >>>>> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. >>>>> Try again. Or try reading a book. >>>> >>>> If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my >>>> statement is >>>> incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and >>>> they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or >>>> are >>>> they just comic books? Methinks so. >>>> >>> >>> Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the Meaning >>> of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. >>> >>> I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that >>> physicists are right. >> >> >> Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in >> Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills >> fame)? > > You took a year of graduate level quantum mechanics and you can't even > remember the name of the collaborating duo? Maybe you don't remember > what you were taught. What I'm telling you is what I've read recently. > >> You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of >> it? Do you think that because it was years ago that all of physics is >> now new and the "trinity" has a new description in your religion that >> everyone must now believe and worship? You are really a piece of work, >> Boinker. >> >> I'm HERE! YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIND IN ERROR WITH WHAT I SAID. >> You know you won't. I say you can't. I say all you know is propaganda >> that you can repeat as tell others to believe. When do you ask for the >> offering? >> > > Wavefunctions are not waves of probability. That's not even how they are > defined. Then what do they represent? Where is your famous ground state electron located? Can you tell me? No you can't. Can you take a guess. Yes you can. How do you do that? Just answer. No book titles please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrbms1$f7g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596869 |
On 9/13/2016 6:33 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/13/2016 10:09 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 10:25 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 10:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no >>>>>>> longer >>>>>>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >>>>>>> think that has been discarded with age. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is >>>>>> wrong. >>>>>> Try again. Or try reading a book. >>>>> >>>>> If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my >>>>> statement is >>>>> incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" >>>>> and >>>>> they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or >>>>> are >>>>> they just comic books? Methinks so. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the >>>> Meaning >>>> of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. >>>> >>>> I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that >>>> physicists are right. >>> >>> >>> Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in >>> Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills >>> fame)? >> >> You took a year of graduate level quantum mechanics and you can't even >> remember the name of the collaborating duo? Maybe you don't remember >> what you were taught. What I'm telling you is what I've read recently. >> >>> You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of >>> it? Do you think that because it was years ago that all of physics is >>> now new and the "trinity" has a new description in your religion that >>> everyone must now believe and worship? You are really a piece of work, >>> Boinker. >>> >>> I'm HERE! YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIND IN ERROR WITH WHAT I SAID. >>> You know you won't. I say you can't. I say all you know is propaganda >>> that you can repeat as tell others to believe. When do you ask for the >>> offering? >>> >> >> Wavefunctions are not waves of probability. That's not even how they are >> defined. > > Then what do they represent? Where is your famous ground state electron > located? Can you tell me? No you can't. That's right. Position is not an inherent attribute of a bound electron. It's like asking what is the temperature of a single H2 molecule. Single molecules don't HAVE a temperature because temperature is a property only for statistical collections. So what's the problem with bound electrons not having position as a physically sensible variable. So what? Wavefunctions are still not waves of probability. > Can you take a guess. Yes you > can. How do you do that? Just answer. No book titles please. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d68dd7e6-bc46-4200-a12d-a59be89dd5f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596764 |
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:26:09 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: > >> On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: > >>>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no > >>>> longer > >>>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't > >>>> think that has been discarded with age. > >>> > >>> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. > >>> Try again. Or try reading a book. > >> > >> If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my statement is > >> incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and > >> they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or are > >> they just comic books? Methinks so. > >> > > > > Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the Meaning > > of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. > > > > I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that > > physicists are right. > > > Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in > Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills > fame)? Um, isn't that supposed to be Yang and Mills? > You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of > it? Did you pass? > I'm HERE! YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIND IN ERROR WITH WHAT I SAID. > You know you won't. I say you can't. I say all you know is propaganda > that you can repeat as tell others to believe. When do you ask for the > offering? I told you in another post what you error is. You seem to confuse the physical model with the physical reality. Your anger seems to suggest some unresolved issues. I hope you are okay. Calm down and take a deep breath before you make your next post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 20:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d89745$0$47992$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596819 |
On 9/13/2016 12:33 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:26:09 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 10:16 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 9:07 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2016 7:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> So you are saying that now Schroedinger wavefunction solutions no >>>>>> longer >>>>>> represent probabilities of selection of eigenvalues? Somehow I don't >>>>>> think that has been discarded with age. >>>>> >>>>> And the sentence you just stated is not accurate. So yes, it is wrong. >>>>> Try again. Or try reading a book. >>>> >>>> If it please m'lord, perhaps if you explained just WHERE my statement is >>>> incorrect rather than simply pouting and saying everyone is "wrong" and >>>> they don't agree with what you've read. Tell us what you've read. Or are >>>> they just comic books? Methinks so. >>>> >>> >>> Nope. Would you like a good book reference? Abbott's book on the Meaning >>> of Quantum Mechanics would be a good start. >>> >>> I'm not saying everyone's wrong. I'm saying YOU'RE wrong here, and that >>> physicists are right. >> >> >> Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in >> Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills >> fame)? > > Um, isn't that supposed to be Yang and Mills? > >> You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of >> it? > Did you pass? > >> I'm HERE! YOU TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOU FIND IN ERROR WITH WHAT I SAID. >> You know you won't. I say you can't. I say all you know is propaganda >> that you can repeat as tell others to believe. When do you ask for the >> offering? > > I told you in another post what you error is. You seem to confuse the > physical model with the physical reality. Did not. You said waves of schroedinger do not relate to probability which is blatantly wrong as I pointed out in my post to you. > Your anger seems to suggest some unresolved issues. > I hope you are okay. Calm down and take a deep breath > before you make your next post. Anger? Please list your credentials that allow you to make this psychological diagnosis? I'm sure you have none. I try to get you to get up off your lazy ass and actually discuss some issues for a change and all I get is senile drool. If you think that because I used caps to get your attention that I'm angry it just shows how incompetent you are. As I constantly told HVAC who tried forever to make me angry and failed: Pros don't get angry. I've had lots of experience dealing with the insane (with papers to prove it) and allowing them to make you angry (and they are VERY good at it) is the LAST thing you can allow to happen. Got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 07:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <79bb31f3-a0c2-435d-bdef-7a6c9dc1a54c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596885 |
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:18:16 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 9/13/2016 12:33 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:26:09 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: [] > >> Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in > >> Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills > >> fame)? > > > > Um, isn't that supposed to be Yang and Mills? > > > >> You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of > >> it? > > Did you pass? So benj, DID YOU PASS? [] > > Your anger seems to suggest some unresolved issues. > > I hope you are okay. Calm down and take a deep breath > > before you make your next post. > > Anger? Please list your credentials that allow you to make this > psychological diagnosis? I'm sure you have none. never claimed to be a professional, just a concerned observer. > I try to get you to get > up off your lazy ass and actually discuss some issues for a change and > all I get is senile drool. I am discussing the issues. > If you think that because I used caps to get > your attention that I'm angry it just shows how incompetent you are. As > I constantly told HVAC who tried forever to make me angry and failed: > Pros don't get angry. I've had lots of experience dealing with the > insane (with papers to prove it) and allowing them to make you angry > (and they are VERY good at it) is the LAST thing you can allow to > happen. Got it? That's why I don usually SHOUT when dealing with you. I am assuming you are not insane, but observing your posts I must conclude that you are self centered and arrogant. Let's get back to the physics then shall we? If, as you and john claim, it is impossible for electrons to have zero size, then present some evidence to prove it. Tell us of some report or measurement that shows the size. You claim you want to speak rationally and logically. Then please do. Support your claim. I'll summarize the understanding I have. The electron is dimensionless to the extent that we can measure its size. So if it does have a size, it is smaller the 1 plank length. The equations of physics that deal with electrons treat it as a point particle, and the results match experimental data very well. Your turn. BTW, sorry but my typing is terrible when I am standing. So within these postings I will not be getting off my ass. But I assume you will not be getting off your ass here either. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 00:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57da279d$0$13165$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596928 |
On 09/14/2016 10:24 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 8:18:16 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 9/13/2016 12:33 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:26:09 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > [] >>>> Tap dance! Why don't you take a years worth of graduate level physics in >>>> Quantum Mechanics like I have (from Mills not less of Wang and Mills >>>> fame)? >>> >>> Um, isn't that supposed to be Yang and Mills? >>> >>>> You think you could pass? You think you could understand any of >>>> it? >>> Did you pass? > > So benj, DID YOU PASS? Of course. I never flunked any courses. Never became a believer with the faith that some developed, though. Only Libs and journalists flunk when they try to study science. You a lib or journalist? You are right it's Yang. I got confuse with the popular calculator of the time. It's OK because I'm insane, a kook, senile, and a babbling, drooling ghost-hunter. Ask anyone. Ask me if "spin is in"! > [] >>> Your anger seems to suggest some unresolved issues. >>> I hope you are okay. Calm down and take a deep breath >>> before you make your next post. >> >> Anger? Please list your credentials that allow you to make this >> psychological diagnosis? I'm sure you have none. > > never claimed to be a professional, just a concerned observer. Bingo. >> I try to get you to get >> up off your lazy ass and actually discuss some issues for a change and >> all I get is senile drool. > > I am discussing the issues. Good for you. Now teach Odd to do the same. I noticed he is starting to improve though complaining loudly about it. For a minute there I thought you were Odd posting under another name. Of course this is the INTERNET where nothing is as it seems. One never really knows who is on the other keyboard, does one? But that's the fun of it! >> If you think that because I used caps to get >> your attention that I'm angry it just shows how incompetent you are. As >> I constantly told HVAC who tried forever to make me angry and failed: >> Pros don't get angry. I've had lots of experience dealing with the >> insane (with papers to prove it) and allowing them to make you angry >> (and they are VERY good at it) is the LAST thing you can allow to >> happen. Got it? > > That's why I don usually SHOUT when dealing with you. > I am assuming you are not insane, but observing your posts I > must conclude that you are self centered and arrogant. > > Let's get back to the physics then shall we? Good choice. > If, as you and john claim, it is impossible for electrons > to have zero size, then present some evidence to prove it. > Tell us of some report or measurement that shows the size. > > You claim you want to speak rationally and logically. > Then please do. Support your claim. Thompson cross-section. Small but not zero. Nuff said. > I'll summarize the understanding I have. The electron is > dimensionless to the extent that we can measure its size. > So if it does have a size, it is smaller the 1 plank length. > The equations of physics that deal with electrons treat it > as a point particle, and the results match experimental data > very well. > > Your turn. What's to say when you say it correctly? Point particle is a mathematical MODEL widely used. That makes it FANTASY. Measured electron is VERY small but not zero. Hence the correct term "point-like particle". NO experiment is going to come up with "zero" as an electron's size. You know why this is. Hence to call it "dimensionless" by ascribing mathematical properties such as zero volume to it is a stretch beyond science. As John has pointed out: "nothing" by definition cannot have properties. Odd of course disagrees. Your turn. > BTW, sorry but my typing is terrible when I am standing. > So within these postings I will not be getting off my ass. > But I assume you will not be getting off your ass here either. > :) Actually usually I"m typing on a tall bar stool (for a variety of reasons). So I pretty much will stay on my ass, though I could easily type standing because of the height of the computer keyboard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 20:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d5a426e7-901d-4460-879a-32b92523b775@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596399 |
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: [] > > Just so. Odd we are all still waiting for you to tell us what exactly is > the medium of "probability waves" and for that matter just what a > "probability wave" is. Until you do, your assertion that QM makes sense > is just kook blather. benj and john What requires a probability wave to need a medium? BTW, your opinion doesn't count. What rule or law of physics? Note: I do not understand it (aka it is senseless) is not a rule of physics. (Bet all I get back is a stream of insults :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 21:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e9b5026f-e4b3-47c8-8269-464f54510bd0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596467 |
Ed You seem to have mathematics and physics mixed up. Probability waves are drawn on a blackboard, or portrayed on some display. Water waves occur in actual water. You're welcome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 21:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d75af2$0$62035$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596467 |
On 9/9/2016 11:12 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > [] >> >> Just so. Odd we are all still waiting for you to tell us what exactly is >> the medium of "probability waves" and for that matter just what a >> "probability wave" is. Until you do, your assertion that QM makes sense >> is just kook blather. > > > benj and john > What requires a probability wave to need a medium? > BTW, your opinion doesn't count. What rule or law of > physics? > Note: I do not understand it (aka it is senseless) > is not a rule of physics. > > (Bet all I get back is a stream of insults :) > A wave is by definition a stress propagated in a medium. Presumably (although it seems like some kind of fantasy) probability waves are probabilities propagated though some medium. If there is no medium how can there be stresses and propagation? There can't. It's utter nonsense. This is like saying you can have pure behavior without anything that is doing the behaving. It's just babble. Thus, what you have is NOT a wave at all but rather just a phenomena that obeys a wave equation. OK. But then we note that the solutions to said equation travel with time. But we can't interpret them that way because there is no medium to travel in. Hence we find the solutions of Schroedinger's equation are pure mathematics traveling in fantasy, only as real as Tinker Bell. These "solutions" have no relationship whatever to reality and only when squared and absolute values taken does it even relate to a GUESS as to what MIGHT happen. To say that these are waves and need no medium is pure kook babble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 21:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr7mu2$1dc8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596741 |
On 9/12/2016 8:48 PM, benj wrote: > A wave is by definition a stress propagated in a medium. Your own private definition doesn't count. This is not the definition of waves as understood by physicists. Formulating your own definition accomplishes nothing, especially when ego prompts you to declare that your definition is THE definition. This would be similar to declaring that momentum is DEFINED to be mass times velocity, which would imply that light cannot possibly have any momentum, which is contrary to measured fact, thereby demonstrating the foolishness of the definition. > Presumably > (although it seems like some kind of fantasy) probability waves are > probabilities propagated though some medium. If there is no medium how > can there be stresses and propagation? There can't. It's utter nonsense. > This is like saying you can have pure behavior without anything that is > doing the behaving. It's just babble. > > Thus, what you have is NOT a wave at all but rather just a phenomena > that obeys a wave equation. OK. But then we note that the solutions to > said equation travel with time. But we can't interpret them that way > because there is no medium to travel in. Hence we find the solutions of > Schroedinger's equation are pure mathematics traveling in fantasy, only > as real as Tinker Bell. These "solutions" have no relationship whatever > to reality and only when squared and absolute values taken does it even > relate to a GUESS as to what MIGHT happen. > > To say that these are waves and need no medium is pure kook babble. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e575f95-149b-44eb-a06a-e08d966e3772@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596741 |
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 9:48:37 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 9/9/2016 11:12 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > > On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 5:33:14 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > > [] > >> > >> Just so. Odd we are all still waiting for you to tell us what exactly is > >> the medium of "probability waves" and for that matter just what a > >> "probability wave" is. Until you do, your assertion that QM makes sense > >> is just kook blather. > > > > > > benj and john > > What requires a probability wave to need a medium? > > BTW, your opinion doesn't count. What rule or law of > > physics? > > Note: I do not understand it (aka it is senseless) > > is not a rule of physics. > > > > (Bet all I get back is a stream of insults :) > > > A wave is by definition a stress propagated in a medium. That is one example of a wave. > ..........Presumably > (although it seems like some kind of fantasy) probability waves are > probabilities propagated though some medium. If there is no medium how > can there be stresses and propagation? There can't. It's utter nonsense. > This is like saying you can have pure behavior without anything that is > doing the behaving. It's just babble. What rule is that based upon? You are still arguing from false assumptions! A sine wave is a mathematical model. It requires no medium. It models the sound of a flute quite well, but the motions of the air molecules that actually carry the sound have traverse motion. A probability wave requires no medium. You confuse the methods of calculation with the physical reality. QM is a model. It successfully calculates the behavior of materials at the subatomic level. > > Thus, what you have is NOT a wave at all but rather just a phenomena > that obeys a wave equation. EXACTLY. > .... OK. But then we note that the solutions to > said equation travel with time. But we can't interpret them that way > because there is no medium to travel in. Hence we find the solutions of > Schroedinger's equation are pure mathematics traveling in fantasy, only > as real as Tinker Bell. These "solutions" have no relationship whatever > to reality and only when squared and absolute values taken does it even > relate to a GUESS as to what MIGHT happen. > > To say that these are waves and need no medium is pure kook babble. To say the equations "have no relationship whatever to reality" is to fail to understand the nature of Physics. By that argument Newton's laws have no relation to reality. If that is your argument, then you and John clearly do not understand the nature of science. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nqsnmo$ge3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #596312 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Ed said >" >So QM spin too small to see but you postulate the electron >is made of a vortex of even tinier particles than the electron >itself. >Just pick and choose your facts, just like other trolls. " >QM "spin" is not like macroscopic spin. >In fact, it's indescribable! No, it's not. Just find a good book on the subject and READ. >That kind of "fairy spin" only happens >where you can't see it- according to QM- >and you have to kind of IMAGINE it, >along with a lot of VIRTUAL stuff and >Magic WORMholes. Kind of like all those stars and galaxies inside electrons? "Fairy galaxies" full of "fairy stars"? >In MY model- which is a true model No, it's not. A true physics model explains and accurately (within its limits) describes what is happening. With descriptions, math models relating things and so forth. All you have is animated GIFs of spinny things. > in that >it can be run in 3D- there are actual >pathways that stuff follows, and the >rules of Physics don't change. Just violated.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <192dffde-8e87-4811-9295-9e97c28f2fa4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596322 |
Michael, QM is PROUD that it violates all the rules
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-08 19:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d1fa92$0$43735$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596329 |
On 9/8/2016 6:41 PM, john wrote: > Michael, > QM is PROUD that it violates all the > rules > Actually, John, QM violates NONE of the rules. The rules being the grand material metaparadigm of science. ALL science to be accepted by ODD MUST obey those rules. If those rules are not obeyed then it's pseudoscience, also known as unscience. You know, the kind of kook stuff everyone makes fun of here!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 07:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nquaa3$1601$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596338 |
On 9/8/2016 6:55 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/8/2016 6:41 PM, john wrote: >> Michael, >> QM is PROUD that it violates all the >> rules >> > Actually, John, QM violates NONE of the rules. The rules being the grand > material metaparadigm of science. ALL science to be accepted by ODD MUST > obey those rules. If those rules are not obeyed then it's pseudoscience, > also known as unscience. You know, the kind of kook stuff everyone makes > fun of here! I'd be curious what you and John think these "rules" are that are being violated. Go ahead and list a few. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web