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 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-09 20:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d34d1a$0$61834$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596407 |
On 9/9/2016 5:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/2016 4:33 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/9/2016 8:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/8/2016 4:57 PM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> A true model prides itself on making sense. >>> >>> "Making sense" is in the eye of the beholder. >>> You want a True Model to make sense to ANYONE, regardless of what >>> they've read or learned. You want a True Model to appeal to visual >>> intuitiveness so that even a third grader would be able to see how it >>> works. >>> >>> Sorry, but that is NOT what a scientific model is intended to do. It >>> doesn't matter how fervently you wish it to be. >>> >>>> QM tries to tell us reality doesn't >>>> make sense. >>> >>> And that's just plain bullshit, John. Quantum mechanics says no such >>> thing, and I have no idea what you've read that led you to say such a >>> stupid thing. >>> >>>> You sure like lies and falsehoods, Odd! >> >> 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. > > As mentioned to you before, you are mistaken if you believe that waves > require a medium by definition. And in fact, we had a discussion not so > long ago where YOUR OWN REFERENCE made the assertion that not all waves > require a medium. So asking for what the medium is for a probability > wave is just baiting nonsense. So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo that two wrongs don't make a right? Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your screwed up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that statement right. A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring points which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. > Secondly, the rather ancient Born interpretation of quantum mechanics > invoking "probability waves" has been left in the same dustbin as > "particle-wave duality" and "relativistic mass". It might help to read > something that doesn't fall apart from age as soon as you open it. 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. So you are always ready to blindly accept the new jargon and go with the popular new "explanation" no matter what? Thinking is out, right? So you've now decided that the old pilot wave theory is what is new all over again? Bohmian mechanics just leads you right back to probability waves in nothing at all. It' really fun to watch a dog (or Odd) chase his own tail. And Lo, you have particles and you have some mystery waves. Sounds to me like particle-wave duality renamed and rehashed. Boinker you are just like a grocery store manager who moves all the shelves around to make everybody think its a brand new store. All you've got is babbling confusion. It is great that you choose the "modern" way with Taylor and Wheeler to just censor relativistic mass out of the textbooks rather than explain it. Of course as a physical term it's wrong and especially misleading but is censorship really the answer? I know YOU are strongly for censorship of all non-approved ideas, but really Odd, don't you think a little understanding is better? Wait. No need to answer. I already know your answer to that one. The way you grasp at any new fashion or jargon, I'll bet you are quite the fashion plate. Bet you got one of those "modern" half-shaved beards that all the "stars" wear now too! You are really a piece of work, Odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-11 18:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr4oos$ohi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596431 |
On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: > So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny > using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not > alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo > that two wrongs don't make a right? > > Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your screwed > up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your > definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the > books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of > it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that > statement right. > > A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just > mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through > interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring points > which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to > propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how > can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN reference that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then when that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference was wrong. YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS used by physicists is in the books I have read. You do not have the right, frankly, to declare that YOU decide what a wave is from your own intuition or experience. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 22:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d75ed9$0$1233$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596626 |
On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not >> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo >> that two wrongs don't make a right? >> >> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your screwed >> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your >> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >> statement right. >> >> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring points >> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how >> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. > > No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN reference > that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then when > that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference was > wrong. If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? > YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS used > by physicists is in the books I have read. Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply wrong. You are wrong. Calling my example of someone publishing statements in a textbook that are wrong a "reference" that proves ME wrong is totally dishonest. Boinker, dishonesty has NO place in science and anyone practicing it needs to be drummed out of science. That appears to include you. > You do not have the right, frankly, to declare that YOU decide what a > wave is from your own intuition or experience. I have the right to point out the historical usage of the definition of a wave. YOU do not have the right to unilaterally redefine all the terms of physics to suit your religious views. That is not science. That is not logic. That is not even sanity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 21:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr7nff$1ecb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596745 |
On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >>> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not >>> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo >>> that two wrongs don't make a right? >>> >>> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your screwed >>> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your >>> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >>> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >>> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >>> statement right. >>> >>> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >>> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >>> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring points >>> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >>> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how >>> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. >> >> No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN reference >> that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then when >> that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference was >> wrong. > > If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you > tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? Because, Ben, it's a lazy man's route to try to find the correct answer by posting the wrong answer in the internet. I do not abide lazy men. > >> YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS used >> by physicists is in the books I have read. > > Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply > wrong. And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? > You are wrong. Calling my example of someone publishing > statements in a textbook that are wrong a "reference" that proves ME > wrong is totally dishonest. Boinker, dishonesty has NO place in science > and anyone practicing it needs to be drummed out of science. That > appears to include you. > >> You do not have the right, frankly, to declare that YOU decide what a >> wave is from your own intuition or experience. > > I have the right to point out the historical usage of the definition of > a wave. I'm sorry, Ben, but I simply don't buy that if a definition held in the 1800s, then it is still good enough for science today. > YOU do not have the right to unilaterally redefine all the terms > of physics to suit your religious views. That is not science. That is > not logic. That is not even sanity. I'm not redefining anything. I'm adopting the usage of the term as it is understood by physicists today. If you'd rather state that the definitions from the 1800s are the CORRECT ones and that anything that has changed since then is nonsense, then I suppose that's a fool's choice that no one would stand in your way to make. Ben, stop being a crusty old man, set in his ways, who can't learn anything any more. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 02:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <i86kad-rjs.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #596752 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >>>> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not >>>> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo >>>> that two wrongs don't make a right? >>>> >>>> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your screwed >>>> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your >>>> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >>>> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >>>> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >>>> statement right. >>>> >>>> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >>>> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >>>> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring points >>>> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >>>> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how >>>> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. >>> >>> No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN reference >>> that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then when >>> that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference was >>> wrong. >> >> If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you >> tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? > > Because, Ben, it's a lazy man's route to try to find the correct answer > by posting the wrong answer in the internet. > > I do not abide lazy men. > >> >>> YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS used >>> by physicists is in the books I have read. >> >> Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply >> wrong. > > And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are > wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? Of course he does. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 19:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d88ac4$0$1260$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596760 |
On 9/12/2016 10:52 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >>>>> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not >>>>> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo >>>>> that two wrongs don't make a right? >>>>> >>>>> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your screwed >>>>> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your >>>>> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >>>>> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >>>>> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >>>>> statement right. >>>>> >>>>> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >>>>> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >>>>> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring points >>>>> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >>>>> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how >>>>> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. >>>> >>>> No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN reference >>>> that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then when >>>> that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference was >>>> wrong. >>> >>> If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you >>> tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? >> >> Because, Ben, it's a lazy man's route to try to find the correct answer >> by posting the wrong answer in the internet. >> >> I do not abide lazy men. >> >>> >>>> YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS used >>>> by physicists is in the books I have read. >>> >>> Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply >>> wrong. >> >> And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are >> wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? > > Of course he does. I'll tell both you clowns (chimp and Boinker) something. When I was a kid my mother used to use your argument on me. I'd give an opinion and she'd say, "well, I suppose that YOU are the only one in the whole world who is right and everyone else is wrong!" That worked for a while, but then one day I suddenly realized that it actually WAS possible for me to be right and everyone else to be wrong and my life changed forever. As for you sheep, just make sure you agree with the herd and so what the farmer tells you to do and everything will turn out just fine in your lives. Trust me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 23:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <46gmad-2a7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #596867 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:52 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> >>> And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are >>> wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? >> >> Of course he does. > > I'll tell both you clowns (chimp and Boinker) something. When I was a > kid my mother used to use your argument on me. I'd give an opinion and > she'd say, "well, I suppose that YOU are the only one in the whole world > who is right and everyone else is wrong!" That worked for a while, but > then one day I suddenly realized that it actually WAS possible for me to > be right and everyone else to be wrong and my life changed forever. Yes, slipping into insanity is usually a life changeing event. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 08:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrbihk$5q3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596867 |
On 9/13/2016 6:24 PM, benj wrote: > I'll tell both you clowns (chimp and Boinker) something. When I was a > kid my mother used to use your argument on me. I'd give an opinion and > she'd say, "well, I suppose that YOU are the only one in the whole world > who is right and everyone else is wrong!" That worked for a while, but > then one day I suddenly realized that it actually WAS possible for me to > be right and everyone else to be wrong and my life changed forever. Aha. OK, now that we have that established.... So you are saying that waves are defined the way you say, just because you say so after thinking about it some, and that everyone else who thinks differently are just wrong (because you say so). So Ben, how do you EVER come to the conclusion that maybe you are wrong and everyone else is right? > > As for you sheep, just make sure you agree with the herd and so what the > farmer tells you to do and everything will turn out just fine in your > lives. Trust me. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 23:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d77054$0$1246$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596752 |
On 9/12/2016 10:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >>>> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are not >>>> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the memo >>>> that two wrongs don't make a right? >>>> >>>> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your >>>> screwed >>>> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your >>>> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >>>> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >>>> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >>>> statement right. >>>> >>>> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >>>> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >>>> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring >>>> points >>>> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >>>> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how >>>> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. >>> >>> No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN reference >>> that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then when >>> that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference was >>> wrong. >> >> If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you >> tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? > > Because, Ben, it's a lazy man's route to try to find the correct answer > by posting the wrong answer in the internet. > > I do not abide lazy men. Blah, blah blah. It's a dishonest lazy man who enters a discussion, declares he's right because it read it all over, but when asked to explain just what he read and where he read it calls everyone else lazy! The only possible conclusion any thinking person can make is like HVAC you have no actually knowledge of science and are just making it all up. You refuse to answer to hide your blatant ignorance. >>> YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS used >>> by physicists is in the books I have read. >> >> Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply >> wrong. > > And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are > wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? So you think that I am the only scientist still able to field a logical thought? you sure don't get around much! It is SO obvious that there cannot be waves without a medium that to discuss it with you is like talking to an insane person. >> You are wrong. Calling my example of someone publishing >> statements in a textbook that are wrong a "reference" that proves ME >> wrong is totally dishonest. Boinker, dishonesty has NO place in science >> and anyone practicing it needs to be drummed out of science. That >> appears to include you. >> >>> You do not have the right, frankly, to declare that YOU decide what a >>> wave is from your own intuition or experience. >> >> I have the right to point out the historical usage of the definition of >> a wave. > > I'm sorry, Ben, but I simply don't buy that if a definition held in the > 1800s, then it is still good enough for science today. We know you don't Boinker. In your life, newer is always better and more correct! I'm sure you have the latest cellphone, the latest OS and you wear one of those seedy half-beards that are in fashion now. But oddly the last time I looked up WAVE in the dictionary it still had the same definition it had last century. So your idea is words only mean what you SAY they mean. Got it. You a "journalist"? Oh, wait! It's "publisher" as I recall! >> YOU do not have the right to unilaterally redefine all the terms >> of physics to suit your religious views. That is not science. That is >> not logic. That is not even sanity. > > I'm not redefining anything. I'm adopting the usage of the term as it is > understood by physicists today. If you'd rather state that the > definitions from the 1800s are the CORRECT ones and that anything that > has changed since then is nonsense, then I suppose that's a fool's > choice that no one would stand in your way to make. You can't (or won't...probably can't) even explain what physicists are saying yet you swear with all your heart you believe and it's true! If you think a one of those "modern" definitions of waves works better then tell us. All you do is say you can't because everyone else is lazy! Bwahahaha! You think you fool people with that? I think you are just sacred shitless to actually discuss physics because just Like HVAC you'll get your ass handed to you if you try. > Ben, stop being a crusty old man, set in his ways, who can't learn > anything any more. Well, when you are called out for senile babbling, just start name-calling. Works for everyone else here. HVAC always likes to say I believe in ghosts. That's always good to get the heat off a loser!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr9163$1g8o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596763 |
On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >>>>> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are >>>>> not >>>>> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the >>>>> memo >>>>> that two wrongs don't make a right? >>>>> >>>>> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your >>>>> screwed >>>>> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me your >>>>> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >>>>> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >>>>> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >>>>> statement right. >>>>> >>>>> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >>>>> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >>>>> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring >>>>> points >>>>> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >>>>> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress how >>>>> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. >>>> >>>> No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN >>>> reference >>>> that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then >>>> when >>>> that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference >>>> was >>>> wrong. >>> >>> If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you >>> tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? >> >> Because, Ben, it's a lazy man's route to try to find the correct answer >> by posting the wrong answer in the internet. >> >> I do not abide lazy men. > > Blah, blah blah. It's a dishonest lazy man who enters a discussion, > declares he's right because it read it all over, but when asked to > explain just what he read and where he read it calls everyone else lazy! I've given you references, which you refuse to read. Yes, you are lazy. If you CHOOSE to, you will find that you are wrong and I am right. I'm not going to indulge your laziness just to jam something down your throat. > The only possible conclusion any thinking person can make is like HVAC > you have no actually knowledge of science and are just making it all up. > You refuse to answer to hide your blatant ignorance. > >>>> YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS >>>> used >>>> by physicists is in the books I have read. >>> >>> Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply >>> wrong. >> >> And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are >> wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? > > So you think that I am the only scientist still able to field a logical > thought? Sorry, but if physicists define waves differently than you do, then I don't think you should be saying you are the one capable of logical thought. What happens to your self-assessment of "logical thought" when you discover you are wrong. > you sure don't get around much! It is SO obvious that there > cannot be waves without a medium that to discuss it with you is like > talking to an insane person. Sorry, but it's not OBVIOUS at all. Waves are defined differently be physicists, no matter what YOU personally think is "obvious". > > >>> You are wrong. Calling my example of someone publishing >>> statements in a textbook that are wrong a "reference" that proves ME >>> wrong is totally dishonest. Boinker, dishonesty has NO place in science >>> and anyone practicing it needs to be drummed out of science. That >>> appears to include you. >>> >>>> You do not have the right, frankly, to declare that YOU decide what a >>>> wave is from your own intuition or experience. >>> >>> I have the right to point out the historical usage of the definition of >>> a wave. >> >> I'm sorry, Ben, but I simply don't buy that if a definition held in the >> 1800s, then it is still good enough for science today. > > We know you don't Boinker. In your life, newer is always better and more > correct! In physics, yes, 21st century understanding is better than 19th century understanding. If you care to disagree with that, then take your place in the Halls of Anachronistic Clingers. > I'm sure you have the latest cellphone, the latest OS and you > wear one of those seedy half-beards that are in fashion now. But oddly > the last time I looked up WAVE in the dictionary it still had the same > definition it had last century. So your idea is words only mean what you > SAY they mean. Got it. You a "journalist"? Oh, wait! It's "publisher" as > I recall! I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. > >>> YOU do not have the right to unilaterally redefine all the terms >>> of physics to suit your religious views. That is not science. That is >>> not logic. That is not even sanity. >> >> I'm not redefining anything. I'm adopting the usage of the term as it is >> understood by physicists today. If you'd rather state that the >> definitions from the 1800s are the CORRECT ones and that anything that >> has changed since then is nonsense, then I suppose that's a fool's >> choice that no one would stand in your way to make. > > You can't (or won't...probably can't) even explain what physicists are > saying I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to indulge your laziness. > yet you swear with all your heart you believe and it's true! If > you think a one of those "modern" definitions of waves works better then > tell us. All you do is say you can't because everyone else is lazy! > Bwahahaha! You think you fool people with that? I think you are just > sacred shitless to actually discuss physics because just Like HVAC > you'll get your ass handed to you if you try. > >> Ben, stop being a crusty old man, set in his ways, who can't learn >> anything any more. > > Well, when you are called out for senile babbling, just start > name-calling. Works for everyone else here. HVAC always likes to say I > believe in ghosts. That's always good to get the heat off a loser! > > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 19:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d88c4e$0$62105$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596799 |
On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 10:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 9:05 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2016 7:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 9/9/2016 7:00 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>> So how is the lawyer business going counselor? You are really funny >>>>>> using my example of a textbook that is as wrong as you are (you are >>>>>> not >>>>>> alone, Odd) as proof that your are right! Odd, didn't you get the >>>>>> memo >>>>>> that two wrongs don't make a right? >>>>>> >>>>>> Odd you can't tell me what a wave is so how can you support your >>>>>> screwed >>>>>> up idea that waves don't need a medium? I've asked you to give me >>>>>> your >>>>>> definition of a wave and you refuse. You only say it's "in all the >>>>>> books". Well, I've never seen it so you give me your understanding of >>>>>> it. Quoting a statement that is blatantly wrong does not make that >>>>>> statement right. >>>>>> >>>>>> A wave is DEFINED as a situation where stress (general term, not just >>>>>> mechanical though that works too) is applied to a medium and through >>>>>> interconnections in that medium the stress travels to neighboring >>>>>> points >>>>>> which in turn create stress at their neighbors and so on leading to >>>>>> propagation of the disturbance. With no medium to propagate stress >>>>>> how >>>>>> can you have anything? MAGIC? Please explain your nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> No, Ben, a wave is NOT defined as you have said. Even your OWN >>>>> reference >>>>> that you provided made a statement that is contrary to it, and then >>>>> when >>>>> that was pointed to you, you simply declared that your own reference >>>>> was >>>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> If a wave is not defined as a stress in a medium, then why can't you >>>> tell me what all those definitions you've read say then? >>> >>> Because, Ben, it's a lazy man's route to try to find the correct answer >>> by posting the wrong answer in the internet. >>> >>> I do not abide lazy men. >> >> Blah, blah blah. It's a dishonest lazy man who enters a discussion, >> declares he's right because it read it all over, but when asked to >> explain just what he read and where he read it calls everyone else lazy! > > I've given you references, which you refuse to read. Yes, you are lazy. > If you CHOOSE to, you will find that you are wrong and I am right. I'm > not going to indulge your laziness just to jam something down your throat. > >> The only possible conclusion any thinking person can make is like HVAC >> you have no actually knowledge of science and are just making it all up. >> You refuse to answer to hide your blatant ignorance. >> >>>>> YOUR definition is wrong, and it is not used by physicists. What IS >>>>> used >>>>> by physicists is in the books I have read. >>>> >>>> Any scientist who uses your idea of waves without any medium is simply >>>> wrong. >>> >>> And therefore you are stating that all physicists save ONE (you) are >>> wrong. Do you REALLY want to make such an egotistical statement? >> >> So you think that I am the only scientist still able to field a logical >> thought? > > Sorry, but if physicists define waves differently than you do, then I > don't think you should be saying you are the one capable of logical > thought. What happens to your self-assessment of "logical thought" when > you discover you are wrong. > >> you sure don't get around much! It is SO obvious that there >> cannot be waves without a medium that to discuss it with you is like >> talking to an insane person. > > Sorry, but it's not OBVIOUS at all. Waves are defined differently be > physicists, no matter what YOU personally think is "obvious". > >> >> >>>> You are wrong. Calling my example of someone publishing >>>> statements in a textbook that are wrong a "reference" that proves ME >>>> wrong is totally dishonest. Boinker, dishonesty has NO place in science >>>> and anyone practicing it needs to be drummed out of science. That >>>> appears to include you. >>>> >>>>> You do not have the right, frankly, to declare that YOU decide what a >>>>> wave is from your own intuition or experience. >>>> >>>> I have the right to point out the historical usage of the definition of >>>> a wave. >>> >>> I'm sorry, Ben, but I simply don't buy that if a definition held in the >>> 1800s, then it is still good enough for science today. >> >> We know you don't Boinker. In your life, newer is always better and more >> correct! > > In physics, yes, 21st century understanding is better than 19th century > understanding. If you care to disagree with that, then take your place > in the Halls of Anachronistic Clingers. > >> I'm sure you have the latest cellphone, the latest OS and you >> wear one of those seedy half-beards that are in fashion now. But oddly >> the last time I looked up WAVE in the dictionary it still had the same >> definition it had last century. So your idea is words only mean what you >> SAY they mean. Got it. You a "journalist"? Oh, wait! It's "publisher" as >> I recall! > > I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. And you believe every word because everything is known in science until you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you change your faith to match? >>>> YOU do not have the right to unilaterally redefine all the terms >>>> of physics to suit your religious views. That is not science. That is >>>> not logic. That is not even sanity. >>> >>> I'm not redefining anything. I'm adopting the usage of the term as it is >>> understood by physicists today. If you'd rather state that the >>> definitions from the 1800s are the CORRECT ones and that anything that >>> has changed since then is nonsense, then I suppose that's a fool's >>> choice that no one would stand in your way to make. >> >> You can't (or won't...probably can't) even explain what physicists are >> saying > > I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by > physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th > century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to > indulge your laziness. You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind some other books. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 23:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ufgmad-2a7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #596868 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: <snip> >> I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. > > And you believe every word because everything is known in science until > you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you > change your faith to match? Sounds like someone is off their meds. Key phrases of kooks: "everything is known in science", "official books", "change your faith" <snip> >> I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by >> physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th >> century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to >> indulge your laziness. > > You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and > saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You > can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you > just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it > and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm > wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is > argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy > slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind > some other books. Yep, someone is definitely off their meds. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 21:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d8ac67$0$50977$b1db1813$e2fc9064@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596879 |
On 9/13/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <snip> > >>> I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. >> >> And you believe every word because everything is known in science until >> you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you >> change your faith to match? > > Sounds like someone is off their meds. > > Key phrases of kooks: "everything is known in science", "official books", > "change your faith" > > <snip> > >>> I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by >>> physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th >>> century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to >>> indulge your laziness. >> >> You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and >> saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You >> can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you >> just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it >> and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm >> wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is >> argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy >> slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind >> some other books. > > Yep, someone is definitely off their meds. > accusations of insanity. Sure sign someone has exceeded your experience and intelligence. Bet you believe in ghosts too, just like HVAC.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 05:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7u2nad-u39.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #596892 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/13/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. >>> >>> And you believe every word because everything is known in science until >>> you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you >>> change your faith to match? >> >> Sounds like someone is off their meds. >> >> Key phrases of kooks: "everything is known in science", "official books", >> "change your faith" >> >> <snip> >> >>>> I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by >>>> physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th >>>> century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to >>>> indulge your laziness. >>> >>> You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and >>> saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You >>> can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you >>> just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it >>> and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm >>> wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is >>> argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy >>> slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind >>> some other books. >> >> Yep, someone is definitely off their meds. >> > accusations of insanity. Sure sign someone has exceeded your experience > and intelligence. Bet you believe in ghosts too, just like HVAC. I would guess it is more the onset of senility than insanity. With kooks it is sometimes hard to tell from casual observation. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 17:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57db17c4$0$31348$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596904 |
On 9/14/2016 1:14 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/13/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. >>>> >>>> And you believe every word because everything is known in science until >>>> you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you >>>> change your faith to match? >>> >>> Sounds like someone is off their meds. >>> >>> Key phrases of kooks: "everything is known in science", "official books", >>> "change your faith" >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by >>>>> physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th >>>>> century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to >>>>> indulge your laziness. >>>> >>>> You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and >>>> saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You >>>> can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you >>>> just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it >>>> and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm >>>> wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is >>>> argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy >>>> slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind >>>> some other books. >>> >>> Yep, someone is definitely off their meds. >>> >> accusations of insanity. Sure sign someone has exceeded your experience >> and intelligence. Bet you believe in ghosts too, just like HVAC. > > I would guess it is more the onset of senility than insanity. > > With kooks it is sometimes hard to tell from casual observation. > Yeah, like all the geezers here you have that senility problem. Bet you've got a new theory of "heavy air" too!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 00:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mdsrad-4qo.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #597093 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/14/2016 1:14 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 9/13/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. >>>>> >>>>> And you believe every word because everything is known in science until >>>>> you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you >>>>> change your faith to match? >>>> >>>> Sounds like someone is off their meds. >>>> >>>> Key phrases of kooks: "everything is known in science", "official books", >>>> "change your faith" >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>> I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by >>>>>> physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th >>>>>> century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to >>>>>> indulge your laziness. >>>>> >>>>> You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and >>>>> saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You >>>>> can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you >>>>> just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it >>>>> and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm >>>>> wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is >>>>> argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy >>>>> slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind >>>>> some other books. >>>> >>>> Yep, someone is definitely off their meds. >>>> >>> accusations of insanity. Sure sign someone has exceeded your experience >>> and intelligence. Bet you believe in ghosts too, just like HVAC. >> >> I would guess it is more the onset of senility than insanity. >> >> With kooks it is sometimes hard to tell from casual observation. >> > > Yeah, like all the geezers here you have that senility problem. Bet > you've got a new theory of "heavy air" too! As usual your ESP is wrong. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 21:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57db50d3$0$31315$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #597103 |
On 9/15/2016 8:53 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/14/2016 1:14 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>> On 9/13/2016 7:59 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not a journalist or a publisher. Waves are defined by physicists today. >>>>>> >>>>>> And you believe every word because everything is known in science until >>>>>> you read a bunch of official books that tell you otherwise and they you >>>>>> change your faith to match? >>>>> >>>>> Sounds like someone is off their meds. >>>>> >>>>> Key phrases of kooks: "everything is known in science", "official books", >>>>> "change your faith" >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> I have ALREADY told you what is the definition of waves as defined by >>>>>>> physicists. You have forgotten it or ignored it and repeated your 19th >>>>>>> century claims. I'm not going to repeat myself, nor am I going to >>>>>>> indulge your laziness. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a liar plain and simple. Just giving the name of some books and >>>>>> saying "go find what I"m saying in there" is the height of lazyness. You >>>>>> can't even give a page number. I did that to you more than once and you >>>>>> just lied and said I never proved anything, so I rubbed your nose in it >>>>>> and BAM! you turn it around and say, that my own reference proves I'm >>>>>> wrong. This is like a visit to an insane asylum. All you want to do is >>>>>> argue and refuse to actually discuss anything. You are such a lazy >>>>>> slacker you can't even give your own opinion but have to hide behind >>>>>> some other books. >>>>> >>>>> Yep, someone is definitely off their meds. >>>>> >>>> accusations of insanity. Sure sign someone has exceeded your experience >>>> and intelligence. Bet you believe in ghosts too, just like HVAC. >>> >>> I would guess it is more the onset of senility than insanity. >>> >>> With kooks it is sometimes hard to tell from casual observation. >>> >> >> Yeah, like all the geezers here you have that senility problem. Bet >> you've got a new theory of "heavy air" too! > > As usual your ESP is wrong. > Is that what your ghosts and imaginary friends tell you? Herb gets his information from his pal, Treb. What's your friend's name?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <h98sad-t5q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #597115 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/15/2016 8:53 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: <snip> >> As usual your ESP is wrong. >> > Is that what your ghosts and imaginary friends tell you? Herb gets his > information from his pal, Treb. What's your friend's name? Either you think you have ESP which leads you to believe your idiotic suppositions are correct or your conspiracy besotted, paranoid mind set leads you to idiotic suppositions. Whatever it is, it certainly is not a rational mind at work. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 17:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57dc5d7b$0$4527$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #597121 |
On 9/16/2016 12:16 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >> On 9/15/2016 8:53 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > <snip> > >>> As usual your ESP is wrong. >>> >> Is that what your ghosts and imaginary friends tell you? Herb gets his >> information from his pal, Treb. What's your friend's name? > > Either you think you have ESP which leads you to believe your idiotic > suppositions are correct or your conspiracy besotted, paranoid mind set > leads you to idiotic suppositions. > > Whatever it is, it certainly is not a rational mind at work. Folks, what he's saying is that when someone points out how little he knows and how wrong his is, then he is sure that means that person is insane because it's absolutely impossible for chimp to ever be wrong. Just ask him!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 21:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jg5uad-5b3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #597218 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/16/2016 12:16 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: >>> On 9/15/2016 8:53 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> As usual your ESP is wrong. >>>> >>> Is that what your ghosts and imaginary friends tell you? Herb gets his >>> information from his pal, Treb. What's your friend's name? >> >> Either you think you have ESP which leads you to believe your idiotic >> suppositions are correct or your conspiracy besotted, paranoid mind set >> leads you to idiotic suppositions. >> >> Whatever it is, it certainly is not a rational mind at work. > > Folks, what he's saying is that when someone points out how little he > knows and how wrong his is, then he is sure that means that person is > insane because it's absolutely impossible for chimp to ever be wrong. > Just ask him! QED. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web