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 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec2d8d7a-932e-4aee-a2c3-a330f65056d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596768 |
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:09 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > [Ed writes: What Rule does a point particle violate?] > > > > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > > > <snip blithering> > > > > Why won't you answer Ed's question, John? > > > Sure John, Mike Moron need to understand how things with no volume still > can exist. A quick visit to a mental hospital should give you lots of > ways to explain it to him. (I'm sure Mike sees Tinker Bell and she has > no volume) Your insults are not helping your cause. Neither of you have presented any logic against an electron being a point particle. All you have are rants and insults. Again: how does a point particle violate any known laws of physics?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 22:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d7604d$0$1233$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596641 |
On 9/11/2016 9:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/11/2016 6:46 PM, john wrote: >> Odd >> Use your brain >> > > You steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, John. > I'll repeat it for you: What natural law do you think has been violated > by quantum mechanics? And does ANY physicist recognize this law. > > You spend a lot of time spluttering things like "Use your brain" and > "You are lost" and "babbling, retarded fool". But isn't it amazing that > you cannot for the LIFE of you point to any natural law that you think > quantum mechanics violates? You know it SEEMS wrong, but you just CANNOT > express why. > > Why is that, John? > Law of causality! Law of Wave motion. Law of Relativity. and on and on. Just a bunch of your kook science. Are ghosts local or non-local?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 21:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr7nmi$1ecb$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596749 |
On 9/12/2016 9:11 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/11/2016 9:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/11/2016 6:46 PM, john wrote: >>> Odd >>> Use your brain >>> >> >> You steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, John. >> I'll repeat it for you: What natural law do you think has been violated >> by quantum mechanics? And does ANY physicist recognize this law. >> >> You spend a lot of time spluttering things like "Use your brain" and >> "You are lost" and "babbling, retarded fool". But isn't it amazing that >> you cannot for the LIFE of you point to any natural law that you think >> quantum mechanics violates? You know it SEEMS wrong, but you just CANNOT >> express why. >> >> Why is that, John? >> > Law of causality! Sorry, but causality holds in quantum mechanics. Why do you think it violates it? > > Law of Wave motion. What law of wave motion is that, Ben? > > Law of Relativity. You mean the Principle of Relativity? Relativistic quantum mechanics holds it rigorously. What are you talking about? > > and on and on. Just a bunch of your kook science. Are ghosts local or > non-local? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-12 23:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d772ac$0$43894$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596754 |
On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 9:11 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/11/2016 9:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/11/2016 6:46 PM, john wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> Use your brain >>>> >>> >>> You steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, John. >>> I'll repeat it for you: What natural law do you think has been violated >>> by quantum mechanics? And does ANY physicist recognize this law. >>> >>> You spend a lot of time spluttering things like "Use your brain" and >>> "You are lost" and "babbling, retarded fool". But isn't it amazing that >>> you cannot for the LIFE of you point to any natural law that you think >>> quantum mechanics violates? You know it SEEMS wrong, but you just CANNOT >>> express why. >>> >>> Why is that, John? >>> >> Law of causality! > > Sorry, but causality holds in quantum mechanics. Why do you think it > violates it? Lie. QM believes in action at a distance. Talk about living in the 1800! >> >> Law of Wave motion. > > What law of wave motion is that, Ben? Shut up. >> Law of Relativity. > > You mean the Principle of Relativity? Relativistic quantum mechanics > holds it rigorously. What are you talking about? Bell proves either QM is right or Relativity is right. Both can't be right. You, however are always wrong. No offense. >> >> and on and on. Just a bunch of your kook science. Are ghosts local or >> non-local? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nr91g8$1g8o$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596765 |
On 9/12/2016 10:29 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 9:11 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 9/11/2016 9:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2016 6:46 PM, john wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> Use your brain >>>>> >>>> >>>> You steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, John. >>>> I'll repeat it for you: What natural law do you think has been violated >>>> by quantum mechanics? And does ANY physicist recognize this law. >>>> >>>> You spend a lot of time spluttering things like "Use your brain" and >>>> "You are lost" and "babbling, retarded fool". But isn't it amazing that >>>> you cannot for the LIFE of you point to any natural law that you think >>>> quantum mechanics violates? You know it SEEMS wrong, but you just >>>> CANNOT >>>> express why. >>>> >>>> Why is that, John? >>>> >>> Law of causality! >> >> Sorry, but causality holds in quantum mechanics. Why do you think it >> violates it? > > Lie. QM believes in action at a distance. Talk about living in the 1800! No sir. Quantum mechanics has no causative action at a distance. That's not what quantum entanglement means. If it were, then there would be faster-than-light signaling, and there ISN'T. > >>> >>> Law of Wave motion. >> >> What law of wave motion is that, Ben? > > Shut up. So you can't tell me what this fictitious law is? You invented it, perhaps you could try to explain it. > >>> Law of Relativity. >> >> You mean the Principle of Relativity? Relativistic quantum mechanics >> holds it rigorously. What are you talking about? > > Bell proves either QM is right or Relativity is right. Both can't be > right. You, however are always wrong. No offense. That's certainly NOT what Bell's theorem says. Relativistic quantum mechanics is fully consistent with all three: Relativity, quantum mechanics, and Bell's theorem. I have no idea where you got the idea otherwise. Stop making shit up. > >>> >>> and on and on. Just a bunch of your kook science. Are ghosts local or >>> non-local? >> >> > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57d88e17$0$43875$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596801 |
On 9/13/2016 10:12 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/2016 10:29 PM, benj wrote: >> On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 9:11 PM, benj wrote: >>>> On 9/11/2016 9:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 9/11/2016 6:46 PM, john wrote: >>>>>> Odd >>>>>> Use your brain >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, John. >>>>> I'll repeat it for you: What natural law do you think has been >>>>> violated >>>>> by quantum mechanics? And does ANY physicist recognize this law. >>>>> >>>>> You spend a lot of time spluttering things like "Use your brain" and >>>>> "You are lost" and "babbling, retarded fool". But isn't it amazing >>>>> that >>>>> you cannot for the LIFE of you point to any natural law that you think >>>>> quantum mechanics violates? You know it SEEMS wrong, but you just >>>>> CANNOT >>>>> express why. >>>>> >>>>> Why is that, John? >>>>> >>>> Law of causality! >>> >>> Sorry, but causality holds in quantum mechanics. Why do you think it >>> violates it? >> >> Lie. QM believes in action at a distance. Talk about living in the 1800! > > No sir. Quantum mechanics has no causative action at a distance. That's > not what quantum entanglement means. If it were, then there would be > faster-than-light signaling, and there ISN'T. > >> >>>> >>>> Law of Wave motion. >>> >>> What law of wave motion is that, Ben? >> >> Shut up. > > So you can't tell me what this fictitious law is? You invented it, > perhaps you could try to explain it. > >> >>>> Law of Relativity. >>> >>> You mean the Principle of Relativity? Relativistic quantum mechanics >>> holds it rigorously. What are you talking about? >> >> Bell proves either QM is right or Relativity is right. Both can't be >> right. You, however are always wrong. No offense. > > That's certainly NOT what Bell's theorem says. Relativistic quantum > mechanics is fully consistent with all three: Relativity, quantum > mechanics, and Bell's theorem. I have no idea where you got the idea > otherwise. Stop making shit up. Sure there is lots of handwaving to say Bell's theorem doesn't say what it says. But that's just whistling past the graveyard. Is non-local phenomena existing or not? You believe in "action at a distance" just like 1800. I guess when it comes to you, fashion is what was old is new all over again. If you believe in non-locality then Einsteins (but not all) relativity is invalidated. period. You can't even write one sentence that makes logical sense. Talking to you is like talking to some fundie evangelist. John is really right about you. You couldn't think to save your own ass.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrbob8$ib7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596873 |
On 9/13/2016 6:38 PM, benj wrote: > Sure there is lots of handwaving to say Bell's theorem doesn't say what > it says. But that's just whistling past the graveyard. Is non-local > phenomena existing or not? You believe in "action at a distance" just > like 1800. I guess when it comes to you, fashion is what was old is new > all over again. Quantum entanglement is not causative action at a distance. It just isn't. You declaring that it is, by golly -- that's just silly. > > If you believe in non-locality then Einsteins (but not all) relativity > is invalidated. Bullshit. Einstein had a principle of local reality that is INDEPENDENT of reality. That principle states that the only way that there could be any correlation of behaviors of two spatially separated objects is by the passing of a signal from one to the other. Then relativity fixes the speed of the signal. However, the principle of local reality is NOT inherent in relativity, is it something that Einstein believed was true SEPARATELY. In this, he was wrong, as the experiments by Aspect et al. demonstrated. Relativistic quantum mechanics is the EXPLICIT demonstration that you can adopt a theory that does not respect the principle of local reality and nevertheless respects relativity. And relativistic quantum mechanics is the most exquisitely tested theory ever. > period. You can't even write one sentence that makes > logical sense. Talking to you is like talking to some fundie evangelist. > > > John is really right about you. You couldn't think to save your own ass. Ben, it your case, it's not what you don't know. It's what you think you know that just ain't so. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 10:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrbpao$kgc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596932 |
On 9/14/2016 9:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 9/13/2016 6:38 PM, benj wrote:
>> Sure there is lots of handwaving to say Bell's theorem doesn't say what
>> it says. But that's just whistling past the graveyard. Is non-local
>> phenomena existing or not? You believe in "action at a distance" just
>> like 1800. I guess when it comes to you, fashion is what was old is new
>> all over again.
>
> Quantum entanglement is not causative action at a distance. It just
> isn't. You declaring that it is, by golly -- that's just silly.
>
>>
>> If you believe in non-locality then Einsteins (but not all) relativity
>> is invalidated.
>
> Bullshit. Einstein had a principle of local reality that is INDEPENDENT
> of reality.
^^^^^^^ relativity
Typo.
> That principle states that the only way that there could be
> any correlation of behaviors of two spatially separated objects is by
> the passing of a signal from one to the other. Then relativity fixes the
> speed of the signal. However, the principle of local reality is NOT
> inherent in relativity, is it something that Einstein believed was true
> SEPARATELY. In this, he was wrong, as the experiments by Aspect et al.
> demonstrated. Relativistic quantum mechanics is the EXPLICIT
> demonstration that you can adopt a theory that does not respect the
> principle of local reality and nevertheless respects relativity. And
> relativistic quantum mechanics is the most exquisitely tested theory ever.
>
>> period. You can't even write one sentence that makes
>> logical sense. Talking to you is like talking to some fundie evangelist.
>>
>>
>> John is really right about you. You couldn't think to save your own ass.
>
> Ben, it your case, it's not what you don't know. It's what you think you
> know that just ain't so.
>
>
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 23:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57da1a81$0$34702$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596932 |
On 09/14/2016 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/13/2016 6:38 PM, benj wrote: >> Sure there is lots of handwaving to say Bell's theorem doesn't say what >> it says. But that's just whistling past the graveyard. Is non-local >> phenomena existing or not? You believe in "action at a distance" just >> like 1800. I guess when it comes to you, fashion is what was old is new >> all over again. > > Quantum entanglement is not causative action at a distance. It just > isn't. You declaring that it is, by golly -- that's just silly. > >> >> If you believe in non-locality then Einsteins (but not all) relativity >> is invalidated. > > Bullshit. Einstein had a principle of local reality that is INDEPENDENT > of reality. That principle states that the only way that there could be > any correlation of behaviors of two spatially separated objects is by > the passing of a signal from one to the other. Then relativity fixes the > speed of the signal. However, the principle of local reality is NOT > inherent in relativity, is it something that Einstein believed was true > SEPARATELY. In this, he was wrong, as the experiments by Aspect et al. > demonstrated. Relativistic quantum mechanics is the EXPLICIT > demonstration that you can adopt a theory that does not respect the > principle of local reality and nevertheless respects relativity. And > relativistic quantum mechanics is the most exquisitely tested theory ever. > >> period. You can't even write one sentence that makes >> logical sense. Talking to you is like talking to some fundie evangelist. >> >> >> John is really right about you. You couldn't think to save your own ass. > > Ben, it your case, it's not what you don't know. It's what you think you > know that just ain't so. Ed, in your case you see all the handwaving and tap dancing by physicists trying to make a silk purse out of a bad situation and just accept it on religious faith. I'd suggest you learn some of the math and experiments behind Bell's theorem. Fantasy does not make it so. Wikipedia is never going to fill you in on what is going on. They censor all science that isn't establishment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af83c47c-3a6f-4763-afa2-4c65c245858d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597010 |
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 11:50:29 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 09/14/2016 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: [] > > Ben, it your case, it's not what you don't know. It's what you think you > > know that just ain't so. > Hmm. you quote Odd, but then try to insult me. Strange. > Ed, in your case you see all the handwaving and tap dancing by > physicists trying to make a silk purse out of a bad situation and just > accept it on religious faith. I'd suggest you learn some of the math and > experiments behind Bell's theorem. Fantasy does not make it so. > Wikipedia is never going to fill you in on what is going on. They censor > all science that isn't establishment. benj, I said many times, but you just don't listen. Accepting a theory based on experimental evidence is not faith. You are the one accepting John's smaller than smallest theory with no experimental evidence. You are the one going on faith.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-13 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf918ff3-a139-4270-bd46-381097d71040@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596749 |
On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 10:11:28 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 9/11/2016 9:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 9/11/2016 6:46 PM, john wrote: > >> Odd > >> Use your brain > >> > > > > You steadfastly refuse to answer direct questions, John. > > I'll repeat it for you: What natural law do you think has been violated > > by quantum mechanics? And does ANY physicist recognize this law. > > > > You spend a lot of time spluttering things like "Use your brain" and > > "You are lost" and "babbling, retarded fool". But isn't it amazing that > > you cannot for the LIFE of you point to any natural law that you think > > quantum mechanics violates? You know it SEEMS wrong, but you just CANNOT > > express why. > > > > Why is that, John? > > > Law of causality! > > Law of Wave motion. > > Law of Relativity. > How does the nature of a point particle violate Causality? Wave motion? Relativity? you continue to spout nonsense. > and on and on. Just a bunch of your kook science. Are ghosts local or > non-local? Show me one so I can test it and see. Otherwise leave theology out of the discussion. This is sci.physics, not sci.supernatural
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be9ef7cf-a4b2-4160-b8af-d242e0174a5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596410 |
בתארי >>> point particles (impossible) > > > > Sorry Boinker, but "points" are pure fantasy and DO NOT exist. > > Why? > > > Hence > > point particles are ... well let us not say "impossible" as that would > > be a moronic statement... only able to exist as mental configurations > > like Tinkerbell "exists". > > How so? Point particles are not identical to mathematical points, any > more than a horsefly is identical to Tinkerbell. Horseflies and > Tinkerbells share the property of translucent wings. Point particles and > mathematical points share the properties of zero volume. But neither > pair are identical. > > > > >> What rule do you think this violates? > > > > Your (and HVAC's) fantasy does not create reality. That's it. > > Whaaaat? > > > > >>> suck gravity- no mechanism- impossible > >> > >> What rule do you think this violates? > > > > Nothing "sucks" (except for certain Bands...see Maple Loops for more > > details). The whole concept of "sucks" is ass-backward. It's all a > > "Push" from the other side. Nothing else makes sense. > > What on earth gives you the idea that the only possible physical > interaction is a push? ========================================= imbecile parrot Bodkin Draper force can be done only !!y push not by pull !! -- > > > Every freshman > > knows this much Boinker. --- right !! ============= > > > >>> electrons moving w/o losing energy- impossible > >> > >> What rule do you think this violates? See also Newton's first law of > >> motion, attributed to Galileo, which says this IS possible. > > > > Why do you assume moving in a straight line at constant speed. ================================= Newton s first law was expanded by me Y Porat THERE ARE SOME VERRY BASIC PARTICLES THATMOVE NATURALLY IN A CURVED PATH SEE GOOGLE THR Y CIRCLON MECHANISM' AS AN EXAMPLE =========== John > > didn't say that. Few electrons move that way and the ones that do had to > > accelerate to get to that speed. Acceleration causes radiation. Hence > > energy loss. Further more, so does not moving in a straight line. > > Boinker are you really this ignorant of science? You been studying EM > > with Chimp again? > > Which electrons, then, are not moving in a straight line and are not > radiating? ======================= electrons around the nuc do not orbit !!!! they are connected to very specific locations in the nuc as ORBITALS SEE GOGLE THE Y PORAT MODEL -AN ABSTRACT ====================================> ATB Y.Porat =====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 07:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrgnjk$nm5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #597127 |
On 9/16/2016 1:12 AM, poraty350@gmail.com wrote: > ========================================= > imbecile parrot Bodkin Draper > force can be done only !!y push > not by pull !! Who says? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 05:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5facc4cc-0b80-41ac-baff-95eab5b1e06b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597140 |
I say. Or else show me your tiny ropes. Idiot Boinker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 08:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrgs9u$10kr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #597141 |
On 9/16/2016 7:51 AM, john wrote: > I say. > Or else show me your tiny ropes. > Idiot Boinker > There, you see? You apparently believe that the only way a force can be exerted is through some kind of material contact. Like a material object leaning on another material object, bumping against another material object, colliding with another material object. Likewise, you then believe that the only way that there can be a pull is if there is a material string or material glue between material objects to bind them together. In your world, it is all material cogs and wheels, moving like gears or bumping around like balls and walls. And yet... and yet... some centuries ago, people discovered that there were forces that happened across a distance with no material contact whatsoever. Electrically charged objects could push or pull against each other with absolutely NOTHING between them and no evidence of anything material being passed between them. Magnets could push or pull against each other in the same way. And so CENTURIES AGO, people began to get used to the idea that forces may not always come as a result of a material contact, and that there were completely different explanations for why things moved other than material contact. For instance, two centuries ago, people realized that objects will move to locations of lower energy BY THEMSELVES, without there being any material push from any other object whatsoever. Thus for another object to influence another object without touching it or exchanging anything with it, all that it had to do is to arrange the potential energy in the vicinity of that other object such that it would move to a location of lower energy. And this is how pulls happen as well as pushes, with no touching, no contact, no strings, nothing passed. In fact, it was realized in this past century that even material contact is an illusion, and no matter ever really comes in contact with matter. ALL those interactions are really arranging potential energy in the vicinity of an object just by being near it, but not in actual touching contact. No electron in an atom actually touches an electron in a neighboring atom, ever. But the atoms can sense a disturbance in the potential energy in the area and will slide away when another material object comes close. This is what keeps a coffee cup from penetrating a table -- not from actually touching it, but floating above it on a cushion of potential energy. The material cogs and wheels understanding of the world is dead, John, has been for a long, long, long time, long before you were born. And just because your SENSES tell you that the door moves because the material of your hand pushes on it, just because COMMON SENSE tells you that you sense the wind because the air molecules actually strike the molecules of your skin -- does not mean that is actually true. Your SENSES and your COMMON SENSE have lied to you about how the world really works. They have told you a fibber's tale of material contact with material things being the story of how the world works, when in fact nothing actually ever touches anything else at all, and never has. So your questions about how pull is possible without a material tiny rope in between is motivated by a lie. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f871b4be-c1c8-48b9-8f1e-f6242b25a990@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597144 |
Odd Wake up, Odd. Wake up, little Odd. Where are your little ropes? Or EVIDENCE of them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 06:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e26f61c1-76ae-473f-940b-901fb9befd9a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597145 |
Odd, when I was a kid, I had a science book that showed various things, and one thing was how to make a boomerang. So, I cut some 3/8 inch plywood, and filed and filed. The next day, I was at school in the playground, and I threw that boomerang with an interested kid beside me. Well, he was still looking forward, for some reason, when it hit him in the back of the head. I got in shit- again. So. I released energy in an Easterly direction, and it expended itself in an Easterly direction, but West of the release. Was that a "pull", Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrgtg6$11nf$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #597147 |
On 9/16/2016 8:44 AM, john wrote: > Odd, > when I was a kid, > I had a science book that showed > various things, > and one thing was how to make a boomerang. > > So, I cut some 3/8 inch plywood, and > filed and filed. > > The next day, I was at school in the > playground, and I threw that boomerang > with an interested kid beside me. > Well, he was still looking forward, > for some reason, when it hit him > in the back of the head. > > I got in shit- again. > > So. I released energy in an Easterly > direction, and it expended itself in > an Easterly direction, but West of the > release. You did not release energy in an easterly direction in the first place. If you don't know how to use physics terms properly, then don't bother. Try reading. > > Was that a "pull", Odd? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tim BandTech.com" <timgolden@bandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 20:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1590a519-d184-49d6-a975-7745ff6362b9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597150 |
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 9:53:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/16/2016 8:44 AM, john wrote: > > Odd, > > when I was a kid, > > I had a science book that showed > > various things, > > and one thing was how to make a boomerang. > > > > So, I cut some 3/8 inch plywood, and > > filed and filed. > > > > The next day, I was at school in the > > playground, and I threw that boomerang > > with an interested kid beside me. > > Well, he was still looking forward, > > for some reason, when it hit him > > in the back of the head. > > > > I got in shit- again. > > > > So. I released energy in an Easterly > > direction, and it expended itself in > > an Easterly direction, but West of the > > release. > > You did not release energy in an easterly direction in the first place. > If you don't know how to use physics terms properly, then don't bother. > Try reading. > > > > > Was that a "pull", Odd? > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Hmmmm. I have a contribution to make regarding the title of this thread: https://twitter.com/TimBandTech/status/777953610873307136 Your title here is oddly appropriate. This could be spooky action at a distance, or perhaps some strangelet has entangled the feng shui. I'm not much for that sort of thing; my place is a mess, but the graphics are pretty good. Funny thing is in that push and pull that seems to be getting discussed is that we could be exposed in this moment to an extreme acceleration field and never know it. The entire universe could be getting yanked left than right and because we are at the same acceleration rate as our surroundings (yes all the way out to the ends of the universe I suppose) we will never feel a thing. Why we could be getting dithered at an awfully scary rate. Would there be a remnant? Say the electric field? I'd rather if it was all spinning then we could have our expansion and still eat cake too, within a 4D shell. Something to ponder anyways along with high dimensional rotation; I'm pretty sure we are rotationally challenged animals; put the little arrow perpendicular to the way the thing is spinning and everything will work out... Hell yes notation matters as much as rotation matters! Hope you enjoyed the flight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 15:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrh4qq$7n6$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #597147 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd, >when I was a kid, >I had a science book that showed >various things, >and one thing was how to make a boomerang. >So, I cut some 3/8 inch plywood, and >filed and filed. >The next day, I was at school in the >playground, and I threw that boomerang >with an interested kid beside me. >Well, he was still looking forward, >for some reason, when it hit him >in the back of the head. >I got in shit- again. >So. I released energy in an Easterly >direction, and it expended itself in >an Easterly direction, but West of the >release. >Was that a "pull", Odd? Not relevant. Boomerangs have rather complex aerodynamics. Throw a boomerang in the vacuum of space, and it will fly off in a straight line, spinning forever. When you threw the boomerang to the east, it eventually supplied force to the air in an easterly direction, eventually causing it to move more westward. It then supplied force to the air in an westerly direction causing it to move generally east again and return to the origin. Without the atmosphere to redirect it, it will just fly off in a straight line forever (ignoring gravity).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web