Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #641507 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-20 00:23 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-25 12:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 269 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 00:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 01:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 01:33 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 05:46 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 07:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:53 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:52 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 07:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 11:23 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 08:27 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-21 12:36 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 09:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 21:01 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 23:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-21 00:32 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-21 01:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-21 07:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 18:06 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-22 22:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 00:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 01:11 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:45 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 06:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 09:36 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 06:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 10:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:31 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 09:33 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 15:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 17:20 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:33 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 09:57 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 18:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-26 05:16 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 00:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 01:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 17:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-26 21:19 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 19:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-26 17:35 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 14:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 04:40 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 00:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:13 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:53 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:21 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 11:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 16:17 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:04 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:48 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 07:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 20:17 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 20:07 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:22 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 08:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 02:47 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:11 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 18:55 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 04:32 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 03:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-26 18:46 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 10:04 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 18:34 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-29 21:08 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 19:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 04:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 05:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:27 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 07:38 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:22 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 12:58 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 02:27 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 19:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 01:21 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-01 17:18 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 16:33 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 17:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 14:23 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-31 17:08 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 10:02 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 17:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 01:55 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-26 19:45 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:57 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:56 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 03:57 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 23:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 22:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:37 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 02:12 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 12:30 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 12:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 07:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 16:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 17:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 17:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 18:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 18:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 18:16 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 18:59 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 09:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 18:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 19:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 22:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 08:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-01 17:04 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:28 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:29 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:37 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 17:07 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 10:17 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:34 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 22:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 03:44 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:44 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:53 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 23:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 13:04 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:15 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 21:22 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 00:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 08:52 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 07:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:18 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 15:28 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:39 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 20:18 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:43 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:58 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 22:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 16:14 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 12:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 15:26 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 21:30 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 22:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-14 07:05 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-15 03:18 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 11:03 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-15 11:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 13:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:23 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 03:53 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:09 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 08:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:43 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:59 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:18 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 19:35 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:21 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 14:28 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:33 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 17:54 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:10 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 18:38 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 17:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 07:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 08:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-27 17:37 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 16:05 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 09:16 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 11:49 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 11:56 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:51 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 13:05 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-28 12:29 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 10:40 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-26 21:54 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 02:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:30 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 16:50 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 10:35 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:43 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:48 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 12:48 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-27 20:29 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 14:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:30 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 14:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 16:55 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 15:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-28 03:52 +0000
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 05:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 05:47 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 06:42 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 09:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 01:32 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 06:41 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 15:45 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 17:12 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 17:25 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 03:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 09:41 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 15:19 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 17:30 -0500
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-23 22:27 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 00:16 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 02:13 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 02:23 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 05:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 05:17 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 07:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 08:08 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-24 22:00 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-25 17:49 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 16:29 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 20:59 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. "Dave Osborne" <SupDavOs@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-23 07:24 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 08:01 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:36 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 17:29 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 17:49 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-24 21:18 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-24 18:37 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-25 06:52 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-25 17:25 -0400
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 03:34 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-07-23 12:09 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 17:02 -0700
Re: The attractive force that binds multi-molecules - how it has to relate to the atomic structure of positive charge concentration at the nucleus. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-07-25 12:57 -0700
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 05:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ol98ih$eja$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642569 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or >> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis >Lies, damned lies and statistics. >The only photo I saw You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or blueshifted. Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and what if that picture was false color to begin with?) Who else do we know who comes up with an entire theory based on a single photo? Yes, Archie Pu. He came up with the "universe is a plutonium atom" silliness based on a cheaply printed diagram in a textbook. (BTW I have that book with the same diagram)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 00:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f02a21c7-584f-44c7-8a53-7863d3aee24c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642577 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or > >> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis > > >Lies, damned lies and statistics. > >The only photo I saw > > You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. Awesome. And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. > > >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies > >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > > You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or > blueshifted. > > Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others > that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are > blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and > what if that picture was false color to begin with?) > > Who else do we know who comes up with an entire theory based on a single > photo? Yes, Archie Pu. He came up with the "universe is a plutonium > atom" silliness based on a cheaply printed diagram in a textbook. > (BTW I have that book with the same diagram)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 01:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3415e60c-926e-4eaf-b1d3-748ff93f4657@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642584 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:20:58 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > > > >> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or > > >> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis > > > > >Lies, damned lies and statistics. > > >The only photo I saw > > > > You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? > > That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. > A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. > Awesome. > And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. ======================== I wonder how old are you ?? TIA Y.Porat ==================================> > >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies > > >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > > > > You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7787faca-fa21-494c-a10d-ebfc4edcf227@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642588 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:14:57 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:20:58 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > >> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or > > > >> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis > > > > > > >Lies, damned lies and statistics. > > > >The only photo I saw > > > > > > You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? > > > > That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. > > A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. > > Awesome. > > And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. > ======================== > I wonder > how old are you ?? > > TIA > Y.Porat > ==================================> > Are you an ass? > > > > > > >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies > > > >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > > > > > > You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 21:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59793f95$0$43704$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #642712 |
On 7/26/2017 8:19 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:14:57 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: >> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:20:58 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or >>>>>> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis >>>> >>>>> Lies, damned lies and statistics. >>>>> The only photo I saw >>>> >>>> You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? >>> >>> That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. >>> A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. >>> Awesome. >>> And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. >> ======================== >> I wonder >> how old are you ?? >> >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> ==================================> > > > Are you an ass? You are busted Banjo! He knows you are a pig thief!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 19:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <075023f8-4fd2-4131-8f8a-95d48c6ce3ba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642720 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 11:21:03 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 7/26/2017 8:19 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 6:14:57 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 10:20:58 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> > >>>>>> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or > >>>>>> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis > >>>> > >>>>> Lies, damned lies and statistics. > >>>>> The only photo I saw > >>>> > >>>> You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? > >>> > >>> That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. > >>> A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. > >>> Awesome. > >>> And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. > >> ======================== > >> I wonder > >> how old are you ?? > >> > >> TIA > >> Y.Porat > >> ==================================> > > > > > Are you an ass? > > You are busted Banjo! He knows you are a pig thief! Shut up benj, I have not stolen you nor will.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olajt5$5ln$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642584 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or >> >> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis >> >> >Lies, damned lies and statistics. >> >The only photo I saw >> >> You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? >That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. Yeah, and...? >A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. >Awesome. Yes it is awesome what the Hubble has done, but not the point. >And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. Hardly upsetting for anyone. >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. >> >> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or >> blueshifted. >> >> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others >> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are >> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and >> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c474e9a-b08e-460a-9e96-ea30da24ab23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642638 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 3:16:07 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >> >> Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or > >> >> cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis > >> > >> >Lies, damned lies and statistics. > >> >The only photo I saw > >> > >> You based your whole theory on seeing a single photo? > > >That was enough. It was on my computer background for a long while. > > Yeah, and...? On my CPU, I have had pictures of GodJi Roger Federer serving... so peRFect! > >A most amazing photo, taken with superb technology. > >Awesome. > > Yes it is awesome what the Hubble has done, but not the point. I once met Hubble's understudy/coworker, I forget his name now. After he gave a lecture at UMCP astrophyics department, him and I spent like three hours talking one-to-one in his office. I can't easily recall his name now. He used to be on PBS 1988 science shows like by the wonderful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ferris Coming of Age in the Milky Way. > >And highly upsetting, ironically, for those who never wanted to see it. > > Hardly upsetting for anyone. Look MM, I don't get mad easily, and I'm not yet ready to be. I like your posts. > >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies > >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > >> > >> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or > >> blueshifted. > >> > >> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others > >> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are > >> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and > >> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) So a picture is not worth a thousand words? I KNEW IT! I can see clearly now... > No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was > blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted? We most all know about the Doppler Effect, especially regards trains. The issue with galactic collisions is this: Universal Expansion. Hello?! MM, just let people talk/discuss. Ideas reach on up to become enlightening. Your condescending attitude helps nobody in any of the observable galaxies. You got something to say/teach/discuss/... start your own damn thread. TIA. Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing. State what's right/correct. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!” Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 04:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olbqro$ven$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642662 |
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift >> >> >galaxies >> >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. >> >> >> >> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or >> >> blueshifted. >> >> >> >> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others >> >> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are >> >> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and >> >> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) >So a picture is not worth a thousand words? I KNEW IT! I can see clearly now... >> No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was >> blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted? >We most all know about the Doppler Effect, especially regards trains. >The issue with galactic collisions is this: Universal Expansion. Hello?! >MM, just let people talk/discuss. Ideas reach on up to become enlightening. >Your condescending attitude helps nobody in any of the observable galaxies. >You got something to say/teach/discuss/... start your own damn thread. TIA. >Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing. State what's right/correct. MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted. That bluish object may be a highly redshifted UV or X-Ray emitter. That red object may be a highly blueshifted hot something, giving off infrared light. Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence), some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point scorecards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 00:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57c6b852-7966-45d9-b42a-60040d68b5be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642760 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 2:40:28 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >> >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift > >> >> >galaxies > >> >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > >> >> > >> >> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or > >> >> blueshifted. > >> >> > >> >> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others > >> >> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are > >> >> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and > >> >> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) > > >So a picture is not worth a thousand words? I KNEW IT! I can see clearly now... > > >> No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was > >> blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted? > > >We most all know about the Doppler Effect, especially regards trains. > >The issue with galactic collisions is this: Universal Expansion. Hello?! > > >MM, just let people talk/discuss. Ideas reach on up to become enlightening. > >Your condescending attitude helps nobody in any of the observable galaxies. > >You got something to say/teach/discuss/... start your own damn thread. TIA. > >Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing. State what's right/correct. > > MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that > was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in > number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the > spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way > of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted. > That bluish object may be a highly redshifted UV or X-Ray emitter. > That red object may be a highly blueshifted hot something, giving off > infrared light. The photo clearly showed distant galaxies that were not supposed to be there. They were outside the boundaries of the known universe. Some were white, some blue and some red. The colour coding was about the nature of their shifting. The blues were coming to us, the reds going away. Pretty static, and so infinite. However saying that the universe is infinite is a big no-no for the Westerners. They burnt one guy at the stake for saying that, Giordanno Bruno I think. Anyway, what they are saying here https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html is that the wavelength is actually changing! Ridiculous. Wavelength cannot change. It can only appear to change. What changes is the speed of c with velocity. So these guys are already wrong to begin with by thinking that c is invariant. When they ignore the blueshift galaxies, write them off, then they can make the universe expand. What is needed is a totally fresh look into the spectral components of the distant galaxies by someone impartial. > > Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was > already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence), > some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction > and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point > scorecards. All Einsteinians are crooks and liars as they hold that the speed of c is invariant (wavelengths get screwed up instead). So what if all their text books and journals repeat this lie a trillion times, a lie will remain a lie. To support a lie is to be a liar, and that I cannot be. Engineers do not work like that. They have to depend upon truth. So when the physicists have become bad, they have to fend for themselves by finding good new physics. And that is what I have done. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olcvud$qgi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642775 |
On 7/27/17 2:25 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 2:40:28 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>>>>> The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift >>>>>>> galaxies >>>>>>> and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or >>>>>> blueshifted. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others >>>>>> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are >>>>>> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and >>>>>> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) >> >>> So a picture is not worth a thousand words? I KNEW IT! I can see clearly now... >> >>>> No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was >>>> blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted? >> >>> We most all know about the Doppler Effect, especially regards trains. >>> The issue with galactic collisions is this: Universal Expansion. Hello?! >> >>> MM, just let people talk/discuss. Ideas reach on up to become enlightening. >>> Your condescending attitude helps nobody in any of the observable galaxies. >>> You got something to say/teach/discuss/... start your own damn thread. TIA. >>> Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing. State what's right/correct. >> >> MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that >> was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in >> number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the >> spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way >> of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted. >> That bluish object may be a highly redshifted UV or X-Ray emitter. >> That red object may be a highly blueshifted hot something, giving off >> infrared light. > > The photo clearly showed distant galaxies that were not supposed to be > there. Who says they weren't supposed to be there? > They were outside the boundaries of the known universe. > Some were white, some blue and some red. > The colour coding was about the nature of their shifting. > The blues were coming to us, the reds going away. > Pretty static, and so infinite. > > However saying that the universe is infinite is a big no-no for the Westerners. > They burnt one guy at the stake for saying that, Giordanno Bruno I think. > > Anyway, what they are saying here > https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html > is that the wavelength is actually changing! > Ridiculous. > Wavelength cannot change. Another blank assertion. What on earth gives you the idea that wavelength cannot change? It even changes with sound in air!! > It can only appear to change. What changes is the > speed of c with velocity. > So these guys are already wrong to begin with by thinking that c is invariant. > When they ignore the blueshift galaxies, write them off, then they can make > the universe expand. > What is needed is a totally fresh look into the spectral components of the > distant galaxies by someone impartial. > >> >> Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was >> already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence), >> some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction >> and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point >> scorecards. > > All Einsteinians are crooks and liars as they hold that the speed of c is > invariant (wavelengths get screwed up instead). > > So what if all their text books and journals repeat this lie a trillion times, > a lie will remain a lie. > > To support a lie is to be a liar, and that I cannot be. Engineers do not work > like that. I've already mentioned that in many respects you do not operate like a scientist. You don't seem to be perturbed about that, even as you attempt to do science. > They have to depend upon truth. So when the physicists have become > bad, they have to fend for themselves by finding good new physics. > > And that is what I have done. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <233f5f0c-138a-4379-baea-dee72784a824@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642804 |
Odd "already mentioned that in many respects you do not operate like a scientist. You don't seem to be perturbed about that, even as attempt to do sc.." Who are you to critique Arindam? You are a woodworker who 'has read physics books'. As such, you can have no idea of what he may or may not be doing differently than other scientists. Which you are NOT, by your own multiple (from a nym) claims. Either that, or you are a liar. As such, even if you ARE a scientist hiding under a righteous 'cover' of some kind, you have reaffirmed Arindam's claim of scientists' being 'cowardly liars'. Which is it, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 11:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <old5qj$156i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642822 |
On 7/27/17 11:03 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "already mentioned that in many respects you do not operate like a > scientist. You don't seem to be perturbed about that, even as > attempt to do sc.." > > Who are you to critique Arindam? > You are a woodworker who 'has read physics books'. And books about how physicists operate. > As such, you can have no idea of what he may or > may not be doing differently than other scientists. He's already stated what he does differently than other scientists. He rejects strongly corroborated experimental data because it happens to support a theory he does not like. That is not how a scientist works. Arindam is operating under the basis that he is the smartest human being that has graced the planet lately, and that the lack of attention he is getting is an indication of massive corruption and self-protective conspiracy. He believes he should be getting an enormous amount of visibility and credit for the work he has done, which is not happening. This is also not how scientists work. > Which you are NOT, by your own multiple (from a nym) > claims. > Either that, or you are a liar. > As such, even if you ARE a scientist hiding under > a righteous 'cover' of some kind, > you have reaffirmed Arindam's claim of scientists' being > 'cowardly liars'. > > Which is it, Odd? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98a56c6a-8813-4260-bd01-2614a4654a45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642830 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/17 11:03 AM, john wrote: > > Odd > > "already mentioned that in many respects you do not operate like a > > scientist. You don't seem to be perturbed about that, even as > > attempt to do sc.." > > > > Who are you to critique Arindam? > > You are a woodworker who 'has read physics books'. > > And books about how physicists operate. > > > As such, you can have no idea of what he may or > > may not be doing differently than other scientists. > > He's already stated what he does differently than other scientists. He > rejects strongly corroborated experimental data because it happens to > support a theory he does not like. That is not how a scientist works. > > Arindam is operating under the basis that he is the smartest human being > that has graced the planet lately, and that the lack of attention he is > getting is an indication of massive corruption and self-protective > conspiracy. He believes he should be getting an enormous amount of > visibility and credit for the work he has done, which is not happening. > This is also not how scientists work. > > > Which you are NOT, by your own multiple (from a nym) > > claims. > > Either that, or you are a liar. > > As such, even if you ARE a scientist hiding under > > a righteous 'cover' of some kind, > > you have reaffirmed Arindam's claim of scientists' being > > 'cowardly liars'. > > > > Which is it, Odd? > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables If you were as obsessed with getting facts straight as you are with tearing down people with whom you disagree you might be able to make enough progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a294a9d-34c4-4b56-8192-01286f85d2e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642830 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/17 11:03 AM, john wrote: > > Odd > > "already mentioned that in many respects you do not operate like a > > scientist. You don't seem to be perturbed about that, even as > > attempt to do sc.." > > > > Who are you to critique Arindam? > > You are a woodworker who 'has read physics books'. > > And books about how physicists operate. > > > As such, you can have no idea of what he may or > > may not be doing differently than other scientists. > > He's already stated what he does differently than other scientists. He > rejects strongly corroborated experimental data because it happens to > support a theory he does not like. That is not how a scientist works. OMG. You are beyond stupid. Disagreement is normal to science, you fucking mental retard. That is how science advances, you fucking filthy troll. Go pound a nail, hammer boy, and leave science to scientist. You worthless piece of troll shit. Lying son of a bitch. > Arindam is operating under the basis that he is the smartest human being > that has graced the planet lately, and that the lack of attention he is > getting is an indication of massive corruption and self-protective > conspiracy. He believes he should be getting an enormous amount of > visibility and credit for the work he has done, which is not happening. > This is also not how scientists work. Arindam has actual argument. He has put considerable work into it. In comparison, you are a worthless piece of troll shit that never bothered to put work into any scientific endeavor. You are a phoney. You are scum. > > > Which you are NOT, by your own multiple (from a nym) > > claims. > > Either that, or you are a liar. > > As such, even if you ARE a scientist hiding under > > a righteous 'cover' of some kind, > > you have reaffirmed Arindam's claim of scientists' being > > 'cowardly liars'. Odd Bodkin is a dishonest coward. And that is all he is and all he will ever be.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 10:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e33e80f0-ef97-43d3-8d6c-455096d38a63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643101 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 6:17:58 AM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:53:45 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/27/17 11:03 AM, john wrote: > > > Odd > > > "already mentioned that in many respects you do not operate like a > > > scientist. You don't seem to be perturbed about that, even as > > > attempt to do sc.." > > > > > > Who are you to critique Arindam? > > > You are a woodworker who 'has read physics books'. > > > > And books about how physicists operate. If this was sports, you would be a fan. Myself, Arinddam, and John would be athletes. > > > > > As such, you can have no idea of what he may or > > > may not be doing differently than other scientists. > > > > He's already stated what he does differently than other scientists. He > > rejects strongly corroborated experimental data because it happens to > > support a theory he does not like. That is not how a scientist works. > > OMG. You are beyond stupid. Disagreement is normal to science, you fucking mental retard. That is how science advances, you fucking filthy troll. Go pound a nail, hammer boy, and leave science to scientist. You worthless piece of troll shit. > > Lying son of a bitch. > > > Arindam is operating under the basis that he is the smartest human being > > that has graced the planet lately, and that the lack of attention he is > > getting is an indication of massive corruption and self-protective > > conspiracy. He believes he should be getting an enormous amount of > > visibility and credit for the work he has done, which is not happening. > > This is also not how scientists work. > > Arindam has actual argument. He has put considerable work into it. In comparison, you are a worthless piece of troll shit that never bothered to put work into any scientific endeavor. You are a phoney. You are scum. Oddball, you are just a smelly troll. You make zero contribution to the actual outcome. > > > > > > Which you are NOT, by your own multiple (from a nym) > > > claims. > > > Either that, or you are a liar. > > > As such, even if you ARE a scientist hiding under > > > a righteous 'cover' of some kind, > > > you have reaffirmed Arindam's claim of scientists' being > > > 'cowardly liars'. > > Odd Bodkin is a dishonest coward. And that is all he is and all he will ever be. The internet has made it easy for silly twits like Odd, Ed, Sergio, Pnal to pretend that they understand what they do not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b9ae711-e9cf-4e0f-a871-2c53ecb93771@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643133 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote: [] > If this was sports, you would be a fan. > Myself, Arinddam, and John would be athletes. Wow you are a laugh fest today, Jimboo. You and John are not even able to afford tickets to the game. Arindam has has some idea of the rules of the game (At least has some skills and training). Why you try to insult him by listing him with yourself is beyond me. 8^) ed ed ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a5c2196-9fd7-4090-a2db-7ca935dbb31b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643142 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:21:09 PM UTC-4, James McGinn wrote: > [] > > If this was sports, you would be a fan. > > Myself, Arinddam, and John would be athletes. > > Wow you are a laugh fest today, Jimboo. > > You and John are not even able to afford tickets to the game. > > Arindam has has some idea of the rules of the game > (At least has some skills and training). > Why you try to insult him by listing him with yourself > is beyond me. > > 8^) ed ed ed You got nothing, you fucking troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 16:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <old3n4$hs$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642775 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 2:40:28 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was >> already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence), >> some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction >> and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point >> scorecards. >All Einsteinians are crooks and liars as they hold that the speed of c is >invariant (wavelengths get screwed up instead). See what I mean? I think simply using the made-up kookword "Einsteinian" is worth kookpoints just by itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <700a059a-ff71-49f4-a308-4c41b0141fc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642825 |
MM cannot follow a description past 'rotating'. Try to throw precession in there, and he just starts spewing invective. I don't know what he finds so threatening about following lines of thought different to what he claims he knows. He claims to be an engineer- Arindam and he should be able to find lots of common ground. Why won't he even try? At least Odd gives some sort of sham-try, but that's more to get in close for a better rip. Hey, Odd? You're a woodworker. Unless you're a lying, cowardly scientist. As a woodworker, you should preface all your opinions as coming from such and having no pretence of representing Science. As a lying, cowardly scientist, you could do Im not sure what... Climate change?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web