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 6 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 18 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-16 20:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57dc9503$0$43888$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #597241 |
On 9/16/2016 5:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > 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. > > See?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 01:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p0kuad-kq4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #597263 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 9/16/2016 5:41 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> 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. >> >> > See? I forgot to add, thanks for proving my point. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13fbfe88-e93f-474e-9504-1a3f13b842a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596868 |
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, benj wrote: [] > >> 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". > > [] > 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? > [] > > > > 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. This is just so much nonsense benj! We found that logic alone doesn't work. That experiment alone doesn't work. You need both along with consensus and repeatability. That is the basis of modern science. You and john just argue from a view that you are omniscient. Sorry, but I will not bow before you. I don't think Odd will either. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergoi <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 12:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrc0b1$13dl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596926 |
On 9/14/2016 9:00 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, benj wrote: > [] >>>> 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". >>> > [] > This is just so much nonsense benj! > > We found that logic alone doesn't work. > That experiment alone doesn't work. > You need both along with consensus and repeatability. > That is the basis of modern science. > > You and john just argue from a view that you are omniscient. > Sorry, but I will not bow before you. I don't think Odd will either. > > ed > it's "Kneel before Zod", not "bow before Odd" https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1294090304/Kneel_before_Zod_300.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c66f6348-8409-463d-966c-2d2f59f7b994@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596926 |
the trouble with stringtheory is Calubi-yaU manifolds, whereinat six (or twelve? degrees of freedom are "hidden" > You and john just argue from a view that you are omniscient. > Sorry, but I will not bow before you. I don't think Odd will either. > > ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 15:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44102878-24b9-411f-8e6c-03af1e54b02c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596976 |
Odd Its not words, Odd. It's ideas. No matter how small your "smallest", there exists smaller. How small may an idea be, Odd? Do ideas have size?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 08:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nre7pd$qj3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596987 |
On 9/14/2016 5:47 PM, john wrote: > Odd > Its not words, Odd. > It's ideas. > No matter how small your "smallest", > there exists smaller. > > How small may an idea be, Odd? > Do ideas have size? > Unicorns are ideas too, John. So is "fraction". This doesn't mean that ideas apply to nature. You can have an idea and GUESS that it MIGHT apply to nature. That's called a hypothesis. This doesn't mean the idea actually does work in the way you think in reality. You have to find that out by observation and experiment to determine which hypotheses are true and which hypotheses are false. That's called science. What you just did above is to say that "smallest" is an invalid idea, JUST BECAUSE there is also another idea of "smaller" sitting next to it. Do you see that ideas bashing against ideas is a POINTLESS, SILLY exercise? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 00:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57da29e1$0$12027$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596926 |
On 09/14/2016 10:00 AM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: >> On 9/13/2016 10:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/2016 10:19 PM, benj wrote: > [] >>>> 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". >>> > [] >> 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? >> > [] >>> >>> 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. > > This is just so much nonsense benj! You lie or are confused. It is a correct description of Odds debating methods which are FAR from honest. If you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention or are lying about it. > We found that logic alone doesn't work. > That experiment alone doesn't work. > You need both along with consensus and repeatability. > That is the basis of modern science. Ah, so you agree with the warm ballers that science is always "settled" by democratic vote of scientists, authorities, executives of science trade organizations and government agencies... especially when a huge energy tax is at stake. While I agree with your assessment of "modern science", That is also what is EXACTLY wrong with science today and why science is rapidly loosing public respect because of their unscience antics. > You and john just argue from a view that you are omniscient. > Sorry, but I will not bow before you. I don't think Odd will either. You've got that exactly backwards. And that is the standard technique for people who think that science discussions are all some kind of rhetorical warfare. It is not? Allow the late Dr. Feynman to put you straight about science: "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-17 08:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69532b16-f66a-454e-aa2b-6013e2085fc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #596926 |
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 7:01:02 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > We found that logic alone doesn't work. > That experiment alone doesn't work. > You need both along with consensus and repeatability. > That is the basis of modern science. Consensus is the problem, you idiot. You loons think that the fact that other people believe what you believe makes it more valid. It doesn't. You are a birdbrain. Avoid science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 06:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6341012-12dd-4771-8779-b1908cfa63f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597299 |
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:46:13 AM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote: > On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 7:01:02 AM UTC-7, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 7:31:30 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > > > We found that logic alone doesn't work. > > That experiment alone doesn't work. > > You need both along with consensus and repeatability. > > That is the basis of modern science. > > Consensus is the problem, you idiot. You loons think > that the fact that other people believe what you > believe makes it more valid. It doesn't. > > You are a birdbrain. Avoid science. Jim, I know this conversation is hard for you to understand. Without consensus and repetability, all that is left is wacky theories like John's vortices that are smaller than smallest, or your jet steam vortices. Consensus is not belief. Consensus is: Yes I see your evidence matches your theory. And in fact when I repeat the measurements, I get the same result. the theory works and produces useful, meaningful results. Lets use it. No act of faith. No word from on high. You, John, and benj just want others to believe you, without evidence, without repeatability, without logic even, just because you say so. I am impressed at the passion you three bring, but I really feel sad that you are not willing or able to learn and grow in your understanding. In your case, Jim, it looks like you are specifically a troll looking to get ratings. You seem to be working hard to get a Kook reward. It must be a lonely life for you if that is what makes you happy. have a good day all. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7941c29-2dca-4a43-9dfa-bdf79ece91e0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597525 |
Ed Consensus believes and teaches a "smallest". Right there it's change school time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 06:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30f15aee-8345-4975-a86e-856114ab29bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597529 |
Ed When I said that the present model is stupid, that was not an insult, it was a statement of fact. Basing a model on there only being stuff as far as you can see or prove, and then thinking you can "update it" later? IF that's not the case?? Stupid. I'm not saying that YOU are stupid, Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b07d3167-31af-4eba-bbbd-c5ecdb11d9b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597530 |
Ed People didn't believe in bacteria before the microscope proved they were there. Was that "good science"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ef7f94d-057f-4ffc-8950-565273c5ad30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #597536 |
Michael How can ANYTHING be declared "fundamental", like the electron has been, right AT THE START????? That's by decree, schmuck. Not by evidence. Not by Logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nrp0t5$vv9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #597537 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael >How can ANYTHING be declared "fundamental", >like the electron has been, >right AT THE START????? >That's by decree, schmuck. >Not by evidence. >Not by Logic. No, it is NOT by decree. It is a THEORY that the electron is fundamental, which from the theory of what leptons are. Scientists regularly try to examine whether the electron is fundamental, which would disprove it being fundamental if there was evidence for it. That's how science works, remember? So far, experiments that attempts to measure its size have come up with "extremely small" and consistent with zero, and attempts to measure its structure have shown no structure whatsoever. This supports the theory that the electron is fundamental.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrp3uo$1opm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #597537 |
On 9/19/2016 9:39 AM, john wrote: > Michael > How can ANYTHING be declared "fundamental", > like the electron has been, > right AT THE START????? It hasn't. > That's by decree, schmuck. > Not by evidence. > Not by Logic. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-19 11:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrp401$1opm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #597536 |
On 9/19/2016 9:33 AM, john wrote: > Ed > People didn't believe in > bacteria before the microscope > proved they were there. > Was that "good science"? > Ah, but John, they had evidence of bacteria before they were seen. What about your stuff? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-22 13:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns18lk$4sl$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #597530 |
On 9/19/2016 8:32 AM, john wrote: > Ed > When I said that the > present model is stupid, that was > not an insult, it was a statement > of fact. > Basing a model on there only > being stuff as far as you can see > or prove, Or have evidence for. > and then thinking you can > "update it" later? And what's wrong with that? > IF that's not the case?? > Stupid. > I'm not saying that YOU are stupid, Ed. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-14 09:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nrbmlt$en0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #596868 |
On 9/13/2016 6:31 PM, benj wrote: > 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? This isn't a matter of faith. It is a matter of fact. How a word is DEFINED is a matter of record, not a matter of argument or thinking or decision. It is a matter of what is recorded by those who use the word, in this case physicists. It doesn't matter, Ben, whether you think the word SHOULD be defined differently, by some argument. You could argue all day until you are blue in the face that "zebra" should be defined differently than the way it is, and you might even have a finely crafted argument for that. But this will not change how it is in fact defined. > >>>>> 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. Definitions are not a matter of OPINION. If you go to the books I have referred to you, then you will see that waves are what I've already told you. Waves are observable phenomena that are easily characterized by their features: periodicity in spatial and temporal domains. These behaviors arise specifically because the physical laws governing the system take a mathematical form that has solutions that are of that wave form. It is a known fact in the physics world that mathematical solutions of physical laws do express themselves as observed behaviors. It is the physical laws that produce the behaviors, not the mathematics, but the mathematical methods of solving equations tells us what those behaviors will be; this is precisely the power of mathematics as a tool in physics. It is NOT a medium or a stress in a medium that produces the waves. It is the physical laws pertaining to the system itself, along with the boundary conditions that drive particular solutions. And it just doesn't matter if you THINK it should be attributed to something else. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-15 00:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <57da1f0a$0$34544$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #596929 |
On 09/14/2016 10:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/13/2016 6:31 PM, benj wrote: >> 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? > > This isn't a matter of faith. It is a matter of fact. How a word is > DEFINED is a matter of record, not a matter of argument or thinking or > decision. It is a matter of what is recorded by those who use the word, > in this case physicists. It doesn't matter, Ben, whether you think the > word SHOULD be defined differently, by some argument. You could argue > all day until you are blue in the face that "zebra" should be defined > differently than the way it is, and you might even have a finely crafted > argument for that. But this will not change how it is in fact defined. Sorry pal, but you have taught me that dictionaries are worthless trash. They do not define "Zebra" the way PHYSICISTS define them. That is a given! You and I go with the physicists. >>>>>> 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. > > Definitions are not a matter of OPINION. > > If you go to the books I have referred to you, then you will see that > waves are what I've already told you. Waves are observable phenomena > that are easily characterized by their features: periodicity in spatial > and temporal domains. These behaviors arise specifically because the > physical laws governing the system take a mathematical form that has > solutions that are of that wave form. Ah, yes! So if waves have observable periodicity in spatial and temporaal domains they are clearly MORE than just solutions to a wave equation, Right? Clearly the periodicity of values in the spatial and temporal domains means that there is a MEDIUM necessary to proved those values. (I know you think nothing at all can exist and have properties, but you (and a few physicists) are the only ones) Hence my definition which comes from the English language of stress propagated in some medium is clearly your understanding too in spite of all your protests. >It is a known fact in the physics > world that mathematical solutions of physical laws do express themselves > as observed behaviors. It is the physical laws that produce the > behaviors, not the mathematics, but the mathematical methods of solving > equations tells us what those behaviors will be; this is precisely the > power of mathematics as a tool in physics. Let us use the word "predicts" rather than "tells" shall we? Don't have such religious faith in your math. And of course math is only a model and the model is not really capable of discovering all true laws. Which is the shortcomings of math as a language of science. > It is NOT a medium or a stress in a medium that produces the waves. It > is the physical laws pertaining to the system itself, along with the > boundary conditions that drive particular solutions. And it just doesn't > matter if you THINK it should be attributed to something else. ANd now you circle back to chasing your own tail after correctly expressing what waves are. So have can you have properties that show propagation in temporal and spatial domains (periodicity isn't really needed, bunky) if there is nothing there to give rise to those properties? Is it sort of a mini-Big Bang where first there was nothing at all and an unimaginable short time later all of creation exists? Is that your religion? I think so. How can you have "boundary conditions" if there is no medium to have a boundary? Thinking isn't something you do, is it? And to extend the discussion, let me note that in the case of QM not only is the medium not understood, but your "observable phenomena" is only witnessed at a distance. Second hand if you will. The waves themselves aren't observable only their squared absolute value. And that is not a direct observation but only a coefficient on probability. So you intend to assert you know it all, but you can't explain what these waves are what medium supports them and how. Basically you know nothing (like most physicists) but pretend you know it all to snow the public and take their money!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web