Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #612684 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-12 04:21 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-01-19 09:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 73 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 04:21 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 16:00 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:03 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:09 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:15 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:19 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 08:58 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 17:50 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-19 21:15 -0500
re: er noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 21:28 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 14:06 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-13 17:36 -0500
re-diation has nothing to do with geometrical rays per se, but thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 17:46 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-12 17:36 -0500
bosons are bosonically thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 01:46 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 12:33 +0100
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 03:40 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 12:53 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 14:40 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 15:11 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 02:44 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:33 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:44 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:32 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:42 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 11:59 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:19 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:28 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:48 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:20 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 12:35 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:50 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:54 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:05 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:22 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:33 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 15:47 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:50 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:14 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:23 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 16:35 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:56 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:28 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-20 04:37 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:58 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 05:55 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 08:30 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 06:55 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 10:21 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-19 10:28 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 21:56 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:37 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 10:41 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:27 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 14:30 -0600
kappa = 1/diameter noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:35 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:34 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:43 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:27 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-17 19:36 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 17:16 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 09:31 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-18 18:36 +0000
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-18 10:13 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-01-13 15:37 -0600
Re: Electron-positron annihilation benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-01-13 17:35 -0500
Re: Electron-positron annihilation moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-01-12 17:03 +0000
1/3 = 1/pi noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-12 10:41 -0800
pith is at most a third thugstyle103@gmail.com - 2017-01-13 01:50 -0800
'rithmeticallyte noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-15 17:50 -0800
Re: Electron-positron annihilation edprochak@gmail.com - 2017-01-12 09:57 -0800
what ever (que sera noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-18 13:41 -0800
sera que) ever what noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-01-19 09:52 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 17:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5o7t9$hsu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #613741 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MikeHunt said >" >Of course you have excellent scientific proof of that. You also have " >Worked for Benzene No it didn't. You haven't provided a shred of scientific proof that your pretty .gif has anything to do with an actual benzene model, plus it contradicts what the standard model successfully models. Plus, once again, you have no explanation why your benzene model doesn't radiate its energy away as EM radiation. Just like this one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 09:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6385293c-105d-497f-8e9d-c182d8baa35c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613823 |
Mike said " again, you have no explanation why your benzene model doesn't radiate its energy away as EM radiation. Just like this one. " All things radiate. All things absorb. Just because our Science is myopic doesn't mean that radiation/absorption cycle isn't happening. HVAC posted "QPO" several years ago that clarified that whole cycle: burnt out electron material/stars fall into the centre and are re-energized and shoot back out as jets, which interact with Hydrogen clouds and form new stars/electron material! IT. IS. A. CYCLE. MICHAEL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o5ocim$vvv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #613832 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Mike said >" >again, you have no explanation why your benzene model doesn't radiate >its energy away as EM radiation. Just like this one. " >All things radiate. >All things absorb. Your inability to come up with an explanation noted. Accelerating electric charges radiate EM radiation, John. Period.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 10:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <54283694-fab7-44ca-803e-157031a29a82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613670 |
On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 5:40:30 PM UTC-5, john wrote: > ed > "he is saying your spinning vortex model of electrons is > something from a dream land. " > > This is how electrons move > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/2electronorbital.GIF Pretty picture. However, it looks like you are using circular orbits (IOW Bohr model). It's a little outdated. > > I use the same path for my Benzene model Could you share the equation used for the calculations? That would indicate the model you are using. the Bohr model fails for larger atoms. Physics moved past the Bohr model a long time ago (about 70 years ago). ED
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 15:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o5bhbh$1d96$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #612794 |
On 1/12/2017 4:36 PM, benj wrote: > > You are as usual just spewing a bunch of drooling blather. The comic > books are Correct. Because SOMEBODY has to defend the loon, and you're just the guy to do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <58795650$0$10589$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #612959 |
On 1/13/2017 4:37 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 1/12/2017 4:36 PM, benj wrote: >> >> You are as usual just spewing a bunch of drooling blather. The comic >> books are Correct. > > Because SOMEBODY has to defend the loon, and you're just the guy to do it. Yes I am. I am a scientist interested only in science. Your religion does not interest me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o58ct7$7af$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #612699 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >I know you guys spend zero effort >actually trying to understand what's >happening down there. So, tell us, why do YOU think you know what's happening down there? Why do you believe you know more than a gaggle of scientists whose job is to figure out "what's happening down there"? And why do your answers always involve precessing spinny things? Do you believe in physics by proclamation? That is, "if John Sefton says it, it is true!" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 10:41 -0800 |
| Subject | 1/3 = 1/pi |
| Message-ID | <c7c80e0f-54bd-468d-ab1f-f58f2f78b8c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612710 |
the area of the wavefront, after one second, is just pi times the secondpower of 37,20,00 miles "around," using the nonphysics-illiterate aspect of pi viz area > Do you believe in physics by proclamation? That is, "if John Sefton says it, > it is true!" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | thugstyle103@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-13 01:50 -0800 |
| Subject | pith is at most a third |
| Message-ID | <89a35ff8-1df1-4ab5-baf5-fdc605207710@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612728 |
of course, although a pith is less than a third, hence pi is more than three, say, thirty-one tenths, but 22/7 is still less than pi, and that's a rather small gore > the area of the wavefront, after one second, > is just pi times the secondpower of 37,20,00 miles "around,"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-15 17:50 -0800 |
| Subject | 'rithmeticallyte |
| Message-ID | <93dd08ba-7197-4464-9d92-d022e63616ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612877 |
abuse of notation, multiply those three factors
for unit-areal surfactant (sik)
> that's a rather small gore
>
> > the area of the wavefront, after one second,
> > is just pi times the secondpower
> > of 37,20,00 miles "around,"
37,20,00
3
-------- ... oh, and
by i/pi_dollars = (-1/i*pi)*1/dollars
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | edprochak@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-12 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e59c4a3e-bade-4b92-b6f4-e0a0617c8799@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612699 |
On Thursday, January 12, 2017 at 11:09:31 AM UTC-5, john wrote: > I know you guys spend zero effort > actually trying to understand what's > happening down there. > I blame QM for telling you you can't Well then your goal is simple: show us how to get past the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If you do, I promise I will call the Nobel committee myself to nominate you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-18 13:41 -0800 |
| Subject | what ever (que sera |
| Message-ID | <08a7a609-96f6-492b-8577-d796004754e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #612716 |
as it is so tiny, obviously, observation would easily knock it about, but there are certainly more prosaical pairs of covariant variables, than position & momentum ... any old pair of covarying variables will do it, esp. when applied to a single atom > Well then your goal is simple: show us how to get past > the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If you do, I promise > I will call the Nobel committee myself to nominate you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-01-19 09:52 -0800 |
| Subject | sera que) ever what |
| Message-ID | <0c4cefb2-1b51-4d10-8f8b-3c87b151c4b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #613907 |
I will see if I can find another pair, although I'm sure that it has been done, before, and I may have done it, three ... notify the panel! > than position & momentum ... any old pair > of covarying variables will do it, > esp. when applied to a single atom > > > Well then your goal is simple: show us how to get past > > the Heisenberg uncertainty limit. If you do, I promise nothin'at atll
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web