Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #603052 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-31 00:41 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-26 10:26 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 364 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 00:41 -0700
The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 02:43 -0700
The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:22 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:07 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:13 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:28 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:01 +0100
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-31 14:08 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-06 23:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-06 23:25 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 03:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 03:33 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 04:49 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Earle Jones27 <earle.jones@comcast.net> - 2016-11-02 11:14 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 11:36 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 12:10 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-02 12:25 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 14:29 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 10:21 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-03 12:30 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:32 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 08:36 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 08:48 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 07:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-07 18:09 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 15:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-07 19:32 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 16:05 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-07 19:28 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 04:45 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 04:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-08 16:07 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 15:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-08 20:00 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-11-06 13:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-07 02:11 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 22:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-07 15:30 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 09:07 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-07 10:10 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 13:46 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-03 11:24 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-06 23:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-08 08:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-08 17:24 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-09 00:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:05 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:29 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 13:50 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 09:50 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 13:56 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 00:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 00:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 07:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 07:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 00:39 -0800
The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:14 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:19 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-10-31 11:44 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-10-31 14:09 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:47 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-10-31 11:58 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 12:25 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:57 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:34 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 18:49 -0400
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 16:33 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-01 19:44 -0400
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 09:39 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 09:42 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-02 17:06 -0400
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 09:00 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-07 07:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 12:08 -0700
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 12:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 12:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-11-08 11:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 12:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-08 16:24 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-11-10 14:21 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-10 18:42 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-10 17:52 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-11 05:25 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 08:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:51 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 10:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-12 19:49 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 04:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 05:51 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 07:12 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:01 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 10:31 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-13 11:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 04:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 05:35 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 06:35 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:34 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 09:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 02:27 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 06:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 06:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 07:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 16:49 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 16:47 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 09:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 11:58 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 15:00 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 15:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 09:50 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:30 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 19:02 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast sdf <sdf@sdf.sdf> - 2016-11-17 20:48 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 16:45 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:05 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 11:37 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 19:32 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 18:22 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 19:30 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:28 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 11:34 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:51 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 12:56 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-16 09:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 11:52 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-17 01:09 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-17 09:58 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 00:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-19 07:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 19:10 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:56 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-15 02:17 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:55 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 17:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 04:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:39 -0500
trons go keplerian; that is hwat the four quantum numbers are noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 19:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:49 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 03:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 04:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 09:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-15 10:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 12:03 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 12:17 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 13:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:40 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:33 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 17:22 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-15 19:37 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-15 21:52 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 04:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 07:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 08:39 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 15:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:03 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:33 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:51 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:33 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:52 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 16:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-16 08:52 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:09 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:53 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:07 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 16:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 19:52 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-16 18:28 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-16 17:02 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 17:46 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-18 17:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-19 18:19 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast "Amazing Distilled Wolverine" <lol_ima_fgt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 14:00 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:42 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-14 18:40 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-11 15:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 18:10 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 20:29 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-12 14:48 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 16:21 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:37 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:29 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-14 07:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:58 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 08:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:35 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-14 11:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 12:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:32 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 10:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 11:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-15 08:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:04 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 07:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 09:32 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-12 08:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-14 07:35 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-12 19:55 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-11 11:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-11 14:04 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 12:09 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-20 13:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-20 14:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 07:54 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 06:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:25 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 06:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 08:49 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-21 16:44 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 10:33 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "F.Art.Ingatu" <F.Art.Ingatu@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-21 10:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 12:48 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 10:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 12:31 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 14:57 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:17 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 05:59 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 17:20 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 09:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:50 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:52 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 18:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 20:11 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 04:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 18:35 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 15:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-25 22:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 00:02 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-26 12:06 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 13:56 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-11-26 14:13 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 14:49 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-26 15:37 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-01 16:15 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 12:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 13:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-06 13:51 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 04:23 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 07:42 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 09:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-12-07 11:01 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 17:17 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-26 23:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 14:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 13:57 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:43 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-24 01:15 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:50 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 22:07 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:03 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:26 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:35 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:35 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:35 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:14 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:22 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:54 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 06:08 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:54 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 02:25 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 22:11 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-27 04:05 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:27 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:36 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:15 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:55 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 08:29 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-28 16:44 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 01:38 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 17:36 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-29 23:38 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 19:15 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 01:25 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-29 21:41 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-30 05:56 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-01 16:44 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:21 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:23 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 20:08 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:51 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 10:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 20:26 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 22:18 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-21 12:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-21 12:19 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 14:02 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 22:46 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:22 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 07:28 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:49 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:32 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 08:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:00 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:14 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 09:21 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:56 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 10:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 11:52 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-23 18:13 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 11:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:20 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:26 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:36 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-23 19:10 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 16:47 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:47 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 06:10 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 06:17 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 08:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 09:06 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 15:40 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-25 03:17 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:58 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 19:57 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 16:39 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-23 14:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-24 06:29 +0000
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:41 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-23 22:55 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 09:49 -0600
Re: The electron goes fast HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 22:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 09:54 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-11-21 10:32 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:41 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-18 19:56 -0500
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-18 16:43 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 15:53 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:24 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:26 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:29 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-11-19 17:30 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-19 20:35 -0800
Re: The electron goes fast Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> - 2016-11-26 10:26 -0600
Page 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 02:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvonta$4a7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #603939 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Well, Dr Hu's "Junius helix" is just the >pathway followed by EVERY POINT >within a disc that rotates once every >time it precesses once. >And, if you're going 10% of the speed >of light around a 10^-09m sphere, >you need a path that repeats as often >as possible, and keeps a constant >acceleration. But it is still accelerating, John, by following a curved path. So it would be constantly be radiating electromagnetic energy, so the electron would spiral inward and crash. And there's nothing forcing it into such a path, and there's Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and, and... Why are you so obsessed with stupid precessing spinny things that you are constantly trying to come up with them as physics law violating electron orbits? We already know the shapes of orbitals from molecule shapes and Schrodinger's Equations, and retarded precessing spinny things aren't a factor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 22:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <478744a7-5f11-4a2b-b71a-adf730dfa4c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603950 |
Michael "would be constantly be radiating electromagnetic energy, so the electron would spiral inward and crash" You really think that? Why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvq6nh$g60$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #603960 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Michael >"would be constantly be radiating electromagnetic energy, so the electron >would spiral inward and crash" >You really think that? Why? 1) Because that is actually what is observed. 2) Electromagnetic theory predicts it, and the preduction matches what is observed. Google "bremsstrahlung". Did you ever wonder why the CERN collider was built with a circumference of 27 km/17 miles? It's to keep the beamline as straight as possible so the beam doesn't radiate away all the energy being given to the beam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 09:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvq5bc$3qe$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #603892 |
On 11/6/2016 9:23 AM, john wrote: > So. > The electron goes fast. > But if it simply described > a circle around the atom, > it will be constantly > accelerating in ONE plane. But no model of the atom has it going around in a circle in the first place. Why do you think anyone thought it did? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yuri Kreaton <invlaid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 10:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvq911$bif$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #603976 |
On 11/7/2016 9:07 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/6/2016 9:23 AM, john wrote: >> So. >> The electron goes fast. >> But if it simply described >> a circle around the atom, >> it will be constantly >> accelerating in ONE plane. > > But no model of the atom has it going around in a circle in the first > place. Why do you think anyone thought it did? > > > > that is what they had in the public movies on TV and in the schools in the 1950's
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 10:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6c5eb19e-77b5-4ae0-bc33-435facabdbb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603976 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 7:07:30 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/6/2016 9:23 AM, john wrote: > > So. > > The electron goes fast. > > But if it simply described > > a circle around the atom, > > it will be constantly > > accelerating in ONE plane. > > But no model of the atom has it going around in a circle in the first > place. Why do you think anyone thought it did? > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Bohr did Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 13:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvqlmg$1alr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #603729 |
On 11/4/2016 10:48 AM, john wrote: > And c is 3 X 10^8 > So you're ~10% now > And Alan Folmsbee calculated it wrong. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 11:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nvfvju$j31$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #603632 |
"I have good reasoning" said <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-Lying-Swine> who is a Cretin, a Face shitter & a Criminal Graveyard Vandal doing this <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg> [1] to his crowd of "Anon Y Mouse" & 8 other Glazier-shit- eaters of the <http://tinyurl.com/Recalcitrant-Swine-Glazier> > hanson wrote: Glazier, what is that "good reasoning" you have?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-06 23:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <dcc01d7c-189c-4617-b630-5e84be40c49a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603100 |
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 5:28:23 PM UTC+2, john wrote: > Well, the Carbon atom is 10^-9 meters. > Recent measurements of electrons' > periods is 10^-16 seconds. > They have to be going at least > PI times 10^-9, so > 3 X 10^7 meters per second, > or 10% of lightspeed. > I typed that AND figured it out > in 45 seconds. ================================== the elctr0n is not a point particle !! see Google 'The Y Porat Model - an abstract' TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 08:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fb5096a2-949a-4c1d-ba11-7417334459cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603961 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 2:13:47 AM UTC-5, pora...@gmail.com wrote: [] > the elctr0n is not a point particle !! > see > Google > 'The Y Porat Model - an abstract' > > TIA > Y.Porat > ============================ Show some evidence. I've looked at your paper before. After 14 years, you still haven't made it any easier to read.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-08 17:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nvt1ot$jql$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #604117 |
edprochak@gmail.com writes: >On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 2:13:47 AM UTC-5, pora...@gmail.com wrote: >[] >> the elctr0n is not a point particle !! >> see >> Google >> 'The Y Porat Model - an abstract' >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ============================ >Show some evidence. I've looked at your paper before. >After 14 years, you still haven't made it any easier to read. And learn how to spell! (or how to use a spellchecker)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-09 00:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29438b69-b884-4c15-afd7-92e3997e0ef0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604117 |
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 6:57:39 PM UTC+2, edpr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 2:13:47 AM UTC-5, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > [] > > the elctr0n is not a point particle !! > > see > > Google > > 'The Y Porat Model - an abstract' > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ============================ > > Show some evidence. I've looked at your paper before. > > After 14 years, you still haven't made it any easier to read. ============================================= (:-) not east to read ?? it is a new discovered 'continent while Spanish people came forst to America they understood nothn about America and the * Indian* a new found continents !! ======== it will take me a few Semesters to teach you what I worked on more than 5 of my best years !! it includes 3D skills ability education. practice chemical knowledge nuclear knowledge including isotopes crystalline knowledge (see some of my basic crystalline sketches and not least more than 5years of day and night persistent work and excuse me some creative imagination MORE THAN A THOUSANT STIAL AND ERRROR CALCULATIONS ITIS CALLED IN MATHEMATICS THE **ITTERATION** SYSTEM mind you even the most advanced computer is solving complicated many unknown items etc BY THE ITTERATION SYSTEM !!! AND STILL NO EXOSTING COMPUTER CAN COMPEET THE CREATIVITY OF A HUMAN MIND 2 I suggest that if you are really interested just let us do it step by stem by SOECIFIC questions and answers ================================ TIA Y.Porat ====================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-31 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ede38058-c9b0-4017-a30a-743faf3174ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603092 |
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:22:31 AM UTC-10, john wrote: > HVAC > How fast does it go? The electron velocity v can be calculated from this unification theory : v = E/p = energy / momentum E = 938 MeV for proton, electrons share proton wave function velocity p = zAk / GtN = momentum inside proton * k/G p = 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51 baryons) where t is 1 second, z is 4.9 meters, A is area of Earth, k is Coulomb's constant, G is Newton's constant, N is number of baryons in Earth v = E / p = 1.6*10^-19 * 9.38*10^8 / ( 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51)) mantissa v = 1.6*9.38*6.67*3.569 / 4.9*4*pi*(6378000^2)*9 = 1.586*10^-14 exponents v = 10^(-19+8-11+51-9) = 10^20 v = 1.586*10^6 meter / second c/v = 299/1.586 = 188 v = c / 188 The electron's characteristic velocity is 188 times slower than the speed of light, c.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nvcor6$164g$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #603114 |
On 10/31/2016 12:05 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:22:31 AM UTC-10, john wrote: >> HVAC >> How fast does it go? > > The electron velocity v can be calculated from this unification theory : > > v = E/p = energy / momentum > > E = 938 MeV for proton, electrons share proton wave function velocity > > p = zAk / GtN = momentum inside proton * k/G > > p = 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51 baryons) > > where t is 1 second, z is 4.9 meters, A is area of Earth, k is Coulomb's constant, G is > Newton's constant, N is number of baryons in Earth > > v = E / p = 1.6*10^-19 * 9.38*10^8 / ( 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51)) > > mantissa > > v = 1.6*9.38*6.67*3.569 / 4.9*4*pi*(6378000^2)*9 = 1.586*10^-14 > > exponents > > v = 10^(-19+8-11+51-9) = 10^20 > > v = 1.586*10^6 meter / second > > c/v = 299/1.586 = 188 > > v = c / 188 > > The electron's characteristic velocity is 188 times slower than the speed of light, c. > Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? Or is there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees with experiment? What would you say about your calculation if it were true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 08:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c70fb71b-b7c4-43ed-8420-7cd7b351aae2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603463 |
Odd "Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? Or is there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees with experiment? What would you say about your calculation if it were true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? " Funny. I was going to ask you the same, Odd: the electrons period has been measured to be about 10^-16seconds by several groups. If it were describing a CIRCLE the size of a Carbon atom- 3 X 10^-09meters, it must go AT LEAST 3 X 10^7 m/sec, which is 10% of light speed. But you ignore THAT experimental data. Why? Which data are you going by?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 13:50 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvqlua$1alr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #603471 |
On 11/2/2016 10:29 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it > immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? Or is > there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees > with experiment? What would you say about your calculation if it were > true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? " > > Funny. > I was going to ask you the same, Odd: > the electrons period has been > measured to be about 10^-16seconds > by several groups. > > If it were describing a CIRCLE the size > of a Carbon atom- 3 X 10^-09meters, But it's NOT a circle, John. The calculations I gave you are consistent with quantum mechanics, and consistent with the measurements you cite. What you did is add a spurious IF to generated your number, and since that IF is wrong, of course your answer for the speed is wrong. > it must go AT LEAST 3 X 10^7 m/sec, > which is 10% of light speed. > > But you ignore THAT experimental data. I'm not ignoring ANY experimental data. > Why? > Which data are you going by? > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4396a327-96a6-49e5-aad0-9d04069b960a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #603463 |
On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:14:18 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 10/31/2016 12:05 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:22:31 AM UTC-10, john wrote: > >> HVAC > >> How fast does it go? > > > > The electron velocity v can be calculated from this unification theory : > > > > v = E/p = energy / momentum > > > > E = 938 MeV for proton, electrons share proton wave function velocity > > > > p = zAk / GtN = momentum inside proton * k/G > > > > p = 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51 baryons) > > > > where t is 1 second, z is 4.9 meters, A is area of Earth, k is Coulomb's constant, G is > > Newton's constant, N is number of baryons in Earth > > > > v = E / p = 1.6*10^-19 * 9.38*10^8 / ( 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51)) > > > > mantissa > > > > v = 1.6*9.38*6.67*3.569 / 4.9*4*pi*(6378000^2)*9 = 1.586*10^-14 > > > > exponents > > > > v = 10^(-19+8-11+51-9) = 10^20 > > > > v = 1.586*10^6 meter / second > > > > c/v = 299/1.586 = 188 > > > > v = c / 188 > > > > The electron's characteristic velocity is 188 times slower than the speed of light, c. > > > > > Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it > immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? Or is > there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees > with experiment? What would you say about your calculation if it were > true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? > > -- > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Odd asked: Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? No, I calculated that speed a year ago. 1/188 is near to 1/137 = alpha. The Fine Structure Constant has been said to be a velocity estimate for electron speed. Or is there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees with experiment? Yes I checked for c/188 being related to past working experiments. Alpha = c/137 What would you say about your calculation if it were true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? I would say that progress is being made. Old science is a mess. I bring order to chaos. The new "Traction Theory" is now being written up. John asked, the electrons period has been measured to be about 10^-16seconds by several groups. If it were describing a CIRCLE the size of a Carbon atom- 3 X 10^-09meters, it must go AT LEAST 3 X 10^7 m/sec, which is 10% of light speed. But you ignore THAT experimental data. Why? Because that is news to me. Please give ref Which data are you going by? 938MeV is in a big book. My theories are new, advanced, and leading the progress towards The Generator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-07 13:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <nvqm9i$1ch9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #603482 |
On 11/2/2016 11:50 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:14:18 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 10/31/2016 12:05 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: >>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:22:31 AM UTC-10, john wrote: >>>> HVAC >>>> How fast does it go? >>> >>> The electron velocity v can be calculated from this unification theory : >>> >>> v = E/p = energy / momentum >>> >>> E = 938 MeV for proton, electrons share proton wave function velocity >>> >>> p = zAk / GtN = momentum inside proton * k/G >>> >>> p = 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51 baryons) >>> >>> where t is 1 second, z is 4.9 meters, A is area of Earth, k is Coulomb's constant, G is >>> Newton's constant, N is number of baryons in Earth >>> >>> v = E / p = 1.6*10^-19 * 9.38*10^8 / ( 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51)) >>> >>> mantissa >>> >>> v = 1.6*9.38*6.67*3.569 / 4.9*4*pi*(6378000^2)*9 = 1.586*10^-14 >>> >>> exponents >>> >>> v = 10^(-19+8-11+51-9) = 10^20 >>> >>> v = 1.586*10^6 meter / second >>> >>> c/v = 299/1.586 = 188 >>> >>> v = c / 188 >>> >>> The electron's characteristic velocity is 188 times slower than the speed of light, c. >>> >> >> >> Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it >> immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? Or is >> there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees >> with experiment? What would you say about your calculation if it were >> true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Odd asked: > Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it > immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? > > No, I calculated that speed a year ago. 1/188 is near to 1/137 = alpha. > The Fine Structure Constant has been said to be a velocity estimate for > electron speed.7 I don't think they're that close, Alan. It's a 37% difference. > > Or is > there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees > with experiment? > > Yes I checked for c/188 being related to past working experiments. Alpha = c/137 > > What would you say about your calculation if it were > true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? > > I would say that progress is being made. Old science is a mess. What makes you think it's a mess? Give something a think: I calculated a number using quantum mechanics for hydrogen and got a number of 0.7%c. You calculated a number and came up with 0.5%c. The fine structure constant has a value of 0.007, right on top of the number I calculated, and you say you are "close". If "old science" gives the number dead on the money, and you are only "close", what makes you think your ideas are better? > I bring order to chaos. The new "Traction Theory" is now being written up. > > John asked, > > the electrons period has been > measured to be about 10^-16seconds > by several groups. > > If it were describing a CIRCLE the size > of a Carbon atom- 3 X 10^-09meters, > it must go AT LEAST 3 X 10^7 m/sec, > which is 10% of light speed. > > But you ignore THAT experimental data. > Why? > > Because that is news to me. Please give ref > > > Which data are you going by? > > 938MeV is in a big book. > > My theories are new, advanced, and leading the progress > towards The Generator. > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 00:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <845c6b8c-120e-47c7-991d-35e5f0a15a3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604007 |
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:56:40 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 11/2/2016 11:50 AM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 3:14:18 AM UTC-10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 10/31/2016 12:05 PM, Alan Folmsbee wrote: > >>> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:22:31 AM UTC-10, john wrote: > >>>> HVAC > >>>> How fast does it go? > >>> > >>> The electron velocity v can be calculated from this unification theory : > >>> > >>> v = E/p = energy / momentum > >>> > >>> E = 938 MeV for proton, electrons share proton wave function velocity > >>> > >>> p = zAk / GtN = momentum inside proton * k/G > >>> > >>> p = 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51 baryons) > >>> > >>> where t is 1 second, z is 4.9 meters, A is area of Earth, k is Coulomb's constant, G is > >>> Newton's constant, N is number of baryons in Earth > >>> > >>> v = E / p = 1.6*10^-19 * 9.38*10^8 / ( 4.9 (4 pi 6378000^2) 9*10^9 / (6.67*10^-11 * 3.569*10^51)) > >>> > >>> mantissa > >>> > >>> v = 1.6*9.38*6.67*3.569 / 4.9*4*pi*(6378000^2)*9 = 1.586*10^-14 > >>> > >>> exponents > >>> > >>> v = 10^(-19+8-11+51-9) = 10^20 > >>> > >>> v = 1.586*10^6 meter / second > >>> > >>> c/v = 299/1.586 = 188 > >>> > >>> v = c / 188 > >>> > >>> The electron's characteristic velocity is 188 times slower than the speed of light, c. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it > >> immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? Or is > >> there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees > >> with experiment? What would you say about your calculation if it were > >> true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Odd asked: > > Just curious, Alan. Suppose you do a calculation like this. Is it > > immediately valuable to you because you can come up with a number? > > > > No, I calculated that speed a year ago. 1/188 is near to 1/137 = alpha. > > The Fine Structure Constant has been said to be a velocity estimate for > > electron speed.7 > > I don't think they're that close, Alan. It's a 37% difference. > > > > > Or is > > there a step where you check to see whether the number actually agrees > > with experiment? > > > > Yes I checked for c/188 being related to past working experiments. Alpha = c/137 > > > > What would you say about your calculation if it were > > true that your number was wrong, according to experimental measurement? > > > > I would say that progress is being made. Old science is a mess. > > What makes you think it's a mess? Give something a think: I calculated a > number using quantum mechanics for hydrogen and got a number of 0.7%c. > You calculated a number and came up with 0.5%c. The fine structure > constant has a value of 0.007, right on top of the number I calculated, > and you say you are "close". If "old science" gives the number dead on > the money, and you are only "close", what makes you think your ideas are > better? > > > I bring order to chaos. The new "Traction Theory" is now being written up. > > > > John asked, > > > > the electrons period has been > > measured to be about 10^-16seconds > > by several groups. > > > > If it were describing a CIRCLE the size > > of a Carbon atom- 3 X 10^-09meters, > > it must go AT LEAST 3 X 10^7 m/sec, > > which is 10% of light speed. > > > > But you ignore THAT experimental data. > > Why? > > > > Because that is news to me. Please give ref > > > > > > Which data are you going by? > > > > 938MeV is in a big book. > > > > My theories are new, advanced, and leading the progress > > towards The Generator. > >=========================== idiot parrot THE ELECTRON IS NOT ORBITING THE NUC IT IS CONNECTED TO A VERY SPECIFIC OINT IN THE NUC AND OCIATE (sp ??)(VIBRATE ()HARMONICALLY the equation s of orbiting and oscilation are the same !!! see Google 'The Y Porat Model - an abstract' (historic innovation !!) Y.Porat ==========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-12 00:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a5248a2c-b1d2-437a-82c2-eaed250b4e44@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #604501 |
Y "AND OCIATE (sp ??)(VIBRATE ()HARMONICALLY " Which would achieve spherical symmetry exactly how?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web