Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630229 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-23 09:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 18:10 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 201 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 09:35 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 10:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 10:08 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-23 11:51 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 00:48 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 00:42 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-24 02:11 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-24 16:06 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 06:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 06:39 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 07:04 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-26 20:24 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 15:40 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-27 02:22 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 21:30 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-27 20:22 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:51 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-28 02:31 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 15:43 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 19:43 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-29 20:38 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 06:10 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-30 14:29 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 10:05 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 15:40 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 10:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:35 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:23 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 16:04 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:15 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 10:25 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 13:02 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 16:02 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-02 01:34 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 23:14 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 23:52 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-02 14:18 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 07:29 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 09:59 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 10:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 12:41 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 08:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 12:21 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 11:42 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-04 21:06 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 18:40 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 13:36 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 15:59 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 22:40 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 03:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 07:12 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-06 15:36 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 20:45 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 06:11 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 06:22 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 06:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-08 14:59 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 09:43 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-08 16:54 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 10:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-08 19:56 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 15:09 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:27 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:44 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-09 16:11 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:25 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-09 17:43 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 15:27 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:26 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 14:26 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 06:01 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:46 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 17:02 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:15 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 10:56 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-10 19:26 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 15:15 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-09 16:07 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 23:34 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 19:29 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 02:39 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-15 21:27 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 07:57 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-15 15:49 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:26 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 09:32 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:50 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 17:54 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:29 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 20:43 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 10:47 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:24 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 14:07 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 06:31 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:52 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-17 18:58 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 19:04 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:54 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:59 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:59 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:00 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 19:22 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 15:15 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-18 13:57 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 08:17 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-18 17:14 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 10:50 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-19 01:09 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 21:59 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 11:00 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 12:49 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:11 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:32 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-18 18:16 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 22:03 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-19 06:14 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:05 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 13:21 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:34 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 07:47 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 05:55 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 06:05 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:26 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 06:33 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:43 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 06:57 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 11:59 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:04 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:18 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:23 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:36 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:41 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 11:37 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:47 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-20 01:59 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 20:02 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 11:28 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 11:43 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 12:53 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 12:15 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 12:49 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 21:15 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-21 00:49 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 20:40 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 14:01 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:14 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-05-20 00:55 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-21 00:53 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 07:27 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:12 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:37 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 12:19 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 12:33 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-21 13:07 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:54 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2017-05-21 14:04 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 19:48 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-21 15:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 19:51 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 11:26 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-21 22:56 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 19:54 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 04:12 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:17 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 17:54 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 12:30 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:19 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 02:05 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 05:03 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 09:41 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:12 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 09:34 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 12:24 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-23 20:11 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-23 20:03 -0400
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 06:47 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 07:03 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:00 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:09 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 12:01 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 10:20 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 08:23 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 12:52 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 13:00 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 15:50 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 16:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:41 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 19:29 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-08 14:54 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-02 14:15 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 03:55 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 13:50 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 10:35 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 15:44 +0000
Re: CH4 for Odd Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:34 -0500
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 07:02 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 09:07 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 12:06 -0700
Re: CH4 for Odd benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-26 18:10 -0400
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 12:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <70f1cf96-b4b3-4425-b6a2-be7ab6d914d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633916 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 2:28:44 PM UTC-4, HVAC wrote:
> Poor John says
>> Well, back in the 80s,
>> I was looking for a magnetic pole at right angles
>> to galactic discs
>> because if atoms and galaxies were alike, then
>> there should be one.
> ----------
>
> Well, no... Back in the 80s you were simply stealing the research
> done by MAINSTREAM science and seeing if you could make any tenuous
> connection to your drug induced visions.
At least JohnJi read the MAINSTREAM's published nonsense==garbage.
> John, you just need to listen to me from now on.
> Forget about BJ, need clown shoes and Loopy is some broke ass
> version of slumdog millionaire.
HVAC, do you dream about me all night long? Wake The Fuck Up! WTFU@#.
Did you also watch Hindi Gandhi, Sholay, ..., Akashic Records, ...?
Fwiw, do you HVAC have any Indian friend in your real life? We Indians
are spread out all over Earth. Ever take a cab? Eat at an Indian restaurant?
Yes yes YES... it was us Indians who put the Rant in restauRant! 7/11?
Ever watch The Simpsons? Raj in TBBT? Lacy in Charlie Sheen's Anger Management?
Of the three {Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise}, as the Wise Wealthy and
UnHealthy Meatloaf proudly sings: Two out of three ain't bad.
> I'll set you on the proper path towards ultimate illumination
And one day you HVAC will learn to properly use punctuation marks.
-- Mahipal == माहिपाल "My Pal" or "Maple" Loops, S(y)rup, Wood. IPMM ७६३८!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 12:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96aa94cd-27ed-4304-a526-4b1a63ddd520@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633916 |
On Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 11:28:44 AM UTC-7, HVAC wrote: > Poor John says > Well, back in the 80s, > I was looking for a magnetic pole at right angles > to galactic discs > because if atoms and galaxies were alike, then > there should be one. > ---------- > > Well, no... Back in the 80s you were simply stealing the research done by MAINSTREAM science and seeing if you could make any tenuous connection to your drug induced visions.at That is quite a big claim there HVAC. Are you going to substantiate this claim or are you just trolling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 21:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5920ea47$0$42062$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #633916 |
On 05/20/2017 02:28 PM, HVAC wrote: > Poor John says > Well, back in the 80s, > I was looking for a magnetic pole at right angles > to galactic discs > because if atoms and galaxies were alike, then > there should be one. > ---------- > > Well, no... Back in the 80s you were simply stealing the research done by MAINSTREAM science and seeing if you could make any tenuous connection to your drug induced visions. > > John, you just need to listen to me from now on. > Forget about BJ, need clown shoes and Loopy is some broke ass version of slumdog millionaire. > I'll set you on the proper path towards ultimate illumination > That's right, John, if you want truth, listen to the media. Journalist prevaricators like HVAC have all you need to believe. Just OBEY and you'll find happiness in Big Brother's arms! Trust me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 00:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofqo6s$nj4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #633877 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd The name's Mike. >"like an atheist constantly attending a church and then asking why they " >Oh so now my theory is too pretty. So an atheist is pretty? Or only when the atheist attends church? >First you ask me to model CH4 and before I'm >done You never began! You immediately fired up your cartoon making program and started feeding guesses into it, until you found something "pretty". And remember, "pretty" doesn't mean correct or good or anything. A land mine painted with rainbows and butterflies and unicorns may be "pretty" but is it even good? >Why are you? Why am I what?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 20:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3df87be-1998-47ab-8794-68547beebd3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633870 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 7:00:02 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >JM > >Odd > >"On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:18:15 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/19/17 12:04 PM, john wrote: > >> > Without cause or rationale? > >> > YOU are the one not using those and supplanting > >> > them with scientific "rules" that make a mockery > >> > of the science that you espouse. > >> > You seek not to elucidate, but to obscure > >> > Shame on you > >> > >> Scientific rules come from observation. > >> > >> Here's how a scientist works, John. > >> > >> 1. First, be careful not to make any assumptions. > > >This is why engineers shouldn't pretend to be scientist. For a real > >scientist the first step is, MAKE ASSUMPTIONS! > > No, John, that's 100% completely incorrect. You talk like a moron. The first step for a scientist > is to make observations. Then the scientists can make a hypothesis > about what is going on. But it is only a hypothesis. It may or may not > be correct. He cannot make any assumptions. The scientist may then try > to devise tests or experiments to help support or refute the hypothesis. > That is how science works. > > Since you appear to be an artist type, you don't think the way scientists > do. I don't know why you hang around here. An artist type here is kind of > like an atheist constantly attending a church and then asking why they > keep talking about some dude who was executed 2000 years ago, and then > asking why everyone gets mad at him when he tries to discuss Abraham > Lincoln instead. All you nitwit have are political arguments.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 14:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofnfet$5kf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #633812 |
On 5/19/17 12:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/19/17 12:04 PM, john wrote: >> Without cause or rationale? >> YOU are the one not using those and supplanting >> them with scientific "rules" that make a mockery >> of the science that you espouse. >> You seek not to elucidate, but to obscure >> Shame on you > > Scientific rules come from observation. > > Here's how a scientist works, John. > > 1. First, be careful not to make any assumptions. None. There are no > God-granted-us-intuition-to-just-know rules. > > Here, this means, do not assume things like "everything has structure". > Instead say, "It MAY be true that all things have structure OR it MAY be > true that some things have structure and other things do not." > > 2. Whatever rules are inferred MUST come from observations. > > That is, if an experiment tells you that something has structure, then > you know it has structure. If an experiment gives you no evidence of > structure, then you may not ASSUME it must have structure anyway. The > best you can do is to say it may or may not. > > 3. Application of the inferred rules results in the creation of > mathematically predictive models. The validity of the rules is based > purely on the match between the QUANTITATIVE predictions of the model > and the QUANTITATIVE measurements in experiment. > > Here, in the spirit of not knowing whether there is structure to an > electron, there are models of both kinds. There are models of > structureless electrons that make certain predictions. There are other > models of structured electrons that make different and distinct > predictions. The measurements SO FAR agree with the first kind of model > and disagree with the second kind of model. And therefore the validity > of the no-structure possibility is deemed to be better than the validity > of the structure possibility. NOTE this comes from comparison with > experiment and NOT from any core and unquestioned assumption. > > 4. Continue to look for evidence that might indicate the inferred rule > is wrong. > > In this case, experimenters continue to look for the kind of evidence > that the structured-electron models predict. So far, they have found none. > > > Please read these four steps over, three times. Note how different they > are from the way an artist like you thinks. > So John.... From your rather terse and tangential reply, I take it that this kind of thinking just does not suit you at all. I think we have talked about the phenomenon of the Dominance of the Personal Normal before. To remind you, this is where every assumption you have in your head makes sense to you and so it would take a GIANT effort for someone to prove to you that you should not hold that assumption. It's a comfort factor, really. Why change something you're comfortable with? If you take a look above, you'll see that the very first step to thinking like a scientist is to actively REMOVE assumptions, unless they are fully validated by observations. This is why you are an artist and not a scientist. Asking you to do this is like asking you to peel your own skin off. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 12:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <700579c9-c1cd-4842-9534-6cb96a0af55f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633827 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 12:01:55 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/19/17 12:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 5/19/17 12:04 PM, john wrote: > >> Without cause or rationale? > >> YOU are the one not using those and supplanting > >> them with scientific "rules" that make a mockery > >> of the science that you espouse. > >> You seek not to elucidate, but to obscure > >> Shame on you > > > > Scientific rules come from observation. > > > > Here's how a scientist works, John. > > > > 1. First, be careful not to make any assumptions. None. There are no > > God-granted-us-intuition-to-just-know rules. > > > > Here, this means, do not assume things like "everything has structure". > > Instead say, "It MAY be true that all things have structure OR it MAY be > > true that some things have structure and other things do not." > > > > 2. Whatever rules are inferred MUST come from observations. > > > > That is, if an experiment tells you that something has structure, then > > you know it has structure. If an experiment gives you no evidence of > > structure, then you may not ASSUME it must have structure anyway. The > > best you can do is to say it may or may not. > > > > 3. Application of the inferred rules results in the creation of > > mathematically predictive models. The validity of the rules is based > > purely on the match between the QUANTITATIVE predictions of the model > > and the QUANTITATIVE measurements in experiment. > > > > Here, in the spirit of not knowing whether there is structure to an > > electron, there are models of both kinds. There are models of > > structureless electrons that make certain predictions. There are other > > models of structured electrons that make different and distinct > > predictions. The measurements SO FAR agree with the first kind of model > > and disagree with the second kind of model. And therefore the validity > > of the no-structure possibility is deemed to be better than the validity > > of the structure possibility. NOTE this comes from comparison with > > experiment and NOT from any core and unquestioned assumption. > > > > 4. Continue to look for evidence that might indicate the inferred rule > > is wrong. > > > > In this case, experimenters continue to look for the kind of evidence > > that the structured-electron models predict. So far, they have found none. > > > > > > Please read these four steps over, three times. Note how different they > > are from the way an artist like you thinks. > > > > So John.... From your rather terse and tangential reply, I take it that > this kind of thinking just does not suit you at all. > > I think we have talked about the phenomenon of the Dominance of the > Personal Normal before. To remind you, this is where every assumption > you have in your head makes sense to you and so it would take a GIANT > effort for someone to prove to you that you should not hold that > assumption. It's a comfort factor, really. Why change something you're > comfortable with? > > If you take a look above, you'll see that the very first step to > thinking like a scientist is to actively REMOVE assumptions, unless they > are fully validated by observations. > > This is why you are an artist and not a scientist. Asking you to do this > is like asking you to peel your own skin off. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Bodkin, You don't have a scientific argument. You have a political argument. This is why you don't belong here. Now do you get it? James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-19 10:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a04f50c-2bbf-40f2-930e-3170257fe086@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633807 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 9:59:07 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/19/17 8:57 AM, john wrote: > > Odd > > " > > > > So John, what would be WRONG with shifting the assumption from "Always > > assume structure" to "Only assume structure when you have evidence for > > it"? Hmmmm? I know your mind does not want to make that shift. The > > question is WHY? > > " > > Because, silly duck, it is wrong. > > And what on earth gives you this knowledge? As far as I can tell, you > simply ASSUME that everything has structure. And you make this > assumption WITHOUT CAUSE and WITHOUT RATIONALE. > > It is unwise to make an unfounded assumption, Scientifically it is wise to make an unfounded assumption. It's essential to any hypothesis--any new model. Then test it. To not make hypothetical assumptions is to disregard the methods of science. James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-20 00:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <194cff05-15ce-4d4d-b03f-e380cb016da1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633807 |
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 7:59:07 PM UTC+3, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/19/17 8:57 AM, john wrote: > > Odd > > " > > > > So John, what would be WRONG with shifting the assumption from "Always > > assume structure" to "Only assume structure when you have evidence for > > it"? Hmmmm? I know your mind does not want to make that shift. The > > question is WHY? > > " > > Because, silly duck, it is wrong. > > And what on earth gives you this knowledge? As far as I can tell, you > simply ASSUME that everything has structure. ==================================== your F en mother has no structure !! =============================================== ANYTHING THAT IS LASTING FOR EVER -- --HAS STRUCTURE IT CAN BE A STABLE STRUCTURE OR A DYNAMIC STRUCTURE BUT ALWWAY SONM STRUCTURE ITI S NOT A F EN MATHEMATICAL FORMULS SMEARED ON A PAPER IT IS MASS IN SOME STATIC OR DYNAMIC STRUCTURE !! ========================== you saw a lot my model even steel from it this or there FOR INSTANCE MY 3D STRUCUTUER OS THE ALAPA APRTICLE and much more that anyone can see at my model on Google from 1993 IN WHICH 2 PROTONS AND 2 NEUTERONS ARE CONNEXTED AT A 'POINT AND SPRED ***** chain of *sub* orbitals ** but piggy professional thief NEVER MENTION THE ORRIGUNAL !!!!!! (Y P) ============================= Y.Porat ==================================== And you make this > assumption WITHOUT CAUSE and WITHOUT RATIONALE. > > It is unwise to make an unfounded assumption, insist that it MUST be > true, and declare any other stance to be illogical, John. That's just > not smart. > > > It is impossible to prove things that are too small > > or too fast. Obviously. So why the caveate > > that we don't recognize them til never? > > Stupid. > > Do science, not politics/debate. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 00:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofqoed$nj4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #633797 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >" >So John, what would be WRONG with shifting the assumption from "Always >assume structure" to "Only assume structure when you have evidence for >it"? Hmmmm? I know your mind does not want to make that shift. The >question is WHY? >" >Because, silly duck, it is wrong. Why is it wrong? You always say something is wrong but when asked why it's wrong, you never answer. >It is impossible to prove things that are too small >or too fast. Obviously. So why the caveate >that we don't recognize them til never? >Stupid. Babbling nonsense. >Do science, not politics/debate. He is doing science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <088738e1-6ac5-4307-85f3-023cd97d054b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633954 |
MM " >It is impossible to prove things that are too small >or too fast. Obviously. So why the caveate >that we don't recognize them til never? >Stupid. Babbling nonsense. " No, Michael. There are many things that cannot be proven/shown directly. If you restrict your science to only those things that can, you will never fly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 13:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofsl9u$kck$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #633993 |
On 5/21/17 9:27 AM, john wrote: > MM > " >> It is impossible to prove things that are too small >> or too fast. Obviously. So why the caveate >> that we don't recognize them til never? >> Stupid. > > Babbling nonsense. > " > No, Michael. > There are many things that cannot be > proven/shown directly. > If you restrict your science to only those > things that can, you will never fly. > The key to science, John, is experimental test. A model has to make a distinctive prediction that no other model makes, and then you go check that prediction in experiment. Without this, it just ain't science. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2eb730f6-8d80-46ee-93ff-f7119b0d363f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #633999 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:12:19 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/21/17 9:27 AM, john wrote: > > MM > > " > >> It is impossible to prove things that are too small > >> or too fast. Obviously. So why the caveate > >> that we don't recognize them til never? > >> Stupid. > > > > Babbling nonsense. > > " > > No, Michael. > > There are many things that cannot be > > proven/shown directly. > > If you restrict your science to only those > > things that can, you will never fly. > > > > The key to science, John, is experimental test. A model has to make a > distinctive prediction that no other model makes, and then you go check > that prediction in experiment. Without this, it just ain't science. That's the easy part, dumbass. The hard part is formulating a hypothesis. That involves comprehensive knowledge and creativity. You idiots are incapable of either. Hell, you idiots can't even intellectualize why you believe what you believe. If you are incapable of analyzing what you believe and why you believe it you have no chance to ever make progress as a theoretical scientists. Nobody needs your empty-headed attempt to redefine scientific discourse. Present an argument or kindly go away. James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05ebc264-c51e-4904-bcdc-db5adf4bdd06@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #634003 |
Jim McGinn drooled... > Present an argument or kindly go away. But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 12:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5d609844-dd62-4cb2-b948-2e79d5518d00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #634006 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Jim McGinn drooled... > > > Present an argument or kindly go away. > > But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! > of > So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer... LOL. I've presented more arguments than any of your pretenders. Nobody can dispute that, you absurd twit. James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofsrr5$fc6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #634008 |
On 5/21/2017 12:33 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >> Jim McGinn drooled... >> >>> Present an argument or kindly go away. >> >> But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! >> of >> So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer... > > LOL. I've presented more arguments than any of your pretenders. > > Nobody can dispute that, you absurd twit. > > James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes > John Gabriel?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <052b9b38-ffa7-4b92-9988-b49d8e24d6f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #634012 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:07:16 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/21/2017 12:33 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Jim McGinn drooled... > >> > >>> Present an argument or kindly go away. > >> > >> But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! > >> of > >> So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer... > > > > LOL. I've presented more arguments than any of your pretenders. > > > > Nobody can dispute that, you absurd twit. > > > > James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes > > > > John Gabriel? Trolling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ofsv74$qtd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #634016 |
On 5/21/2017 1:54 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:07:16 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 5/21/2017 12:33 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Jim McGinn drooled... >>>> >>>>> Present an argument or kindly go away. >>>> >>>> But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! >>>> of >>>> So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer... >>> >>> LOL. I've presented more arguments than any of your pretenders. >>> >>> Nobody can dispute that, you absurd twit. >>> >>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes >>> >> >> John Gabriel? > > Trolling? > No. The term: "you absurd twit" made me think of him. Sorry.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 19:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be83e9b4-eae0-466c-a2aa-2fc5d9480608@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #634022 |
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 2:04:51 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 5/21/2017 1:54 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 1:07:16 PM UTC-7, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > >> On 5/21/2017 12:33 PM, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Jim McGinn drooled... > >>>> > >>>>> Present an argument or kindly go away. > >>>> > >>>> But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! > >>>> of > >>>> So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer... > >>> > >>> LOL. I've presented more arguments than any of your pretenders. > >>> > >>> Nobody can dispute that, you absurd twit. > >>> > >>> James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes > >>> > >> > >> John Gabriel? > > > > Trolling? > > > > No. The term: "you absurd twit" made me think of him. > > Sorry. No problem. Now you got me curious. Can you provide a link? Is he a scientist?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aefb6d1b-e28e-495c-a918-074a53166db4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #634008 |
> Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 12:19:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > Jim McGinn squeaked, in desperation... > > > Present an argument or kindly go away. > > But Jim, that is exactly what has been asked of you umpteen times... and still, you have no argument, no observations, and no experimental evidence! > of > So... kindly go away, boy, since you've got nothing to offer... >LOL. I've presented more arguments than any of your pretenders. > Nobody can dispute that... Well, Jim, I can certainly agree that you argue a lot, but without the benefit of observations, experiments or support from *any* of tens of thousands of scientists around the world it is pretty darn clear that you've got nothing going for you except bluster. Why do you continue to put yourself up for basically universal ridicule from every direction? When are you finally going to realize that *all* of your 'arguments' are scientifically absurd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web