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 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05f02753-fb0a-4e12-8262-fe5a832ef849@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642803 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:10:36 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > Ari > "Is it pure meanness that prevents people from accepting the idea of the infinite? > Now this is a philosophical question. " > > They refuse to accept it. > They also see this redshift data that > indicates that, either > a) we are at the center of expansion, or > b) there is an optical effect of some kind > : > So, naturally, they choose "centre ". > They have been the centre since birth. > Yee Ha!! Yes, this Eisntein cult really is about maintaining the Aristotle theory which was so comfortable to the Christian world for centuries. These guys want to push science back to the realm of nonsense. They have no use for truth and reason, only lies and dogma. Sad. Still, the impact of genuine scientists is still there and I expect that it will continue. If not in the West, then in the East. I mean, Far East. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 08:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3a84dcfa-434a-459c-8844-1e3a9912395f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642791 |
Banjo says The number is infinite. When the universe is infinite, the number of galaxies have to be infinite. The universe will always be bigger than the biggest telescopes that can be made ---------- See? This is what happens when one process from a false premise. Banjo has neither the training nor the mental competence to understand modern astrophysics. Like all the kooks here, he begins with a false idea and then proceeds to attempt to back it up. In this case Banjo, "Saw a picture once". He is now trying to hide the fact that he thought reddish looking galaxies were red shifted. Lol It's just so typical of a kook. The current crop of kooks has pretty much been beaten down. Now Lord Satan has answered my prayer and sent me a new kook to disabuse. Hail Satan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 17:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <597a5d03$0$43571$b1db1813$2411a48f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #642807 |
On 7/27/2017 11:17 AM, HVAC wrote: > Banjo says > The number is infinite. When the universe is infinite, the number of galaxies > have to be infinite. The universe will always be bigger than the biggest > telescopes that can be made > ---------- > > See? This is what happens when one process from a false premise. Banjo has neither the training nor the mental competence to understand modern astrophysics. Like all the kooks here, he begins with a false idea and then proceeds to attempt to back it up. In this case Banjo, "Saw a picture once". He is now trying to hide the fact that he thought reddish looking galaxies were red shifted. > > Lol > > It's just so typical of a kook. The current crop of kooks has pretty much been beaten down. Now Lord Satan has answered my prayer and sent me a new kook to disabuse. > > Hail Satan > You mean reddish galaxies aren't red-shifted? Of course they are. Banjo is here to REPLACE you as head ignoramus.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <old30o$hs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642791 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >The scales do not change because there is no way one can do so. If the universe >is really expanding then the universal constants will have to change with time. >For the distances between objects will be changing and so to keep the universe >ticking G has to be some G(t). Why do you claim this? >Which does not happen. No one says that G today is more than G 100 years ago. >If the universe is expanding, the distance between the Earth and Sun will have >to be increasing. If you state this, then you don't understand how the expansion of the universe works. It does not apply to gravitationally bound systems like the solar system, a galaxy or a bound galaxy group. Think of what would happen if you detonated a stick of dynamite in space. There would be an expanding cloud of debris with each particle of debris moving away from all the other particles, forever. However, each particle of debris is bound as a solid particle, and each particle of debris will not itself expand. At some time in the future, each particle of debris will be isolated, with no other debris particles anywhere near it. If the universe is really expanding, then some time in the distant future one can observe only our solar system, our galaxy and other (bound) galaxies in the local group, others would have expanded away from us. >That is not my stance. My stance is that anything based upon e=mcc is rubbish, >for the speed of light is not invariant with the speed of the emitter. Yet all observations state that it is invariant. >> Corroborated experimental evidence is the heart and soul of scientific >> truth. If you claim it is all bogus, this is not how a scientist operates. Or, as Feynman wrote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." -Richard P. Feynman >> >> Hubble's observation showed that the number of galaxies exhibiting >> >> redshift is far, far, far greater than those exhibiting blueshift. The >> >> data are right there for your inspection, rather than you just making up >> >> an equality of redshift and blueshift. >> > >> > A lie. >> > Data can be manufactured by liars for fooling the public. >> >> And what evidence do you have that the data have been falsified? Bland >> allegations without back-up will simply render your credibility to ashes. >I got a photo long ago showing many galaxies where none were expected, and >beyond those glimpses of even more galaxies. Indicating that the universe is >infinite. Certainly bigger than expected, with Hubble operational. Not an answer to the question being asked. > The photo >showed with colour code the galaxies coming towards us, and away from us. I don't believe you. Show us this alleged photo showing galaxies color coded corresponding to the redshift/blueshift of the galaxies, with the color coding created by NASA, the groups running Hubble or reputable scientists. I personally still believe you saw blue galaxies that you thought were blueshifted, not simply blue, and red galaxies that you thought were redshifted, not red.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 09:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <999ad414-53c2-42ad-a69d-31e60ace0f77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642823 |
Haha. Arindam- Odd is just a woodworker- ignore him. MM is some kind of engineer- he claims. Test him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 11:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <old5ii$14le$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642824 |
On 7/27/17 11:16 AM, john wrote: > Haha. > Arindam- > > Odd is just a woodworker- ignore him. "Just" a woodworker? OK, John, and from what position are you speaking from? What are your credentials in physics, hmmmm? > MM is some kind of engineer- he claims. Test him. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olfqbp$1eh2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642828 |
On 7/27/2017 11:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/17 11:16 AM, john wrote: >> Haha. >> Arindam- >> >> Odd is just a woodworker- ignore him. > > "Just" a woodworker? OK, John, and from what position are you speaking > from? What are your credentials in physics, hmmmm? john => conceptual spinny ideas > >> MM is some kind of engineer- he claims. Test him. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d0009992-611a-4d0c-af27-7201ef7f8164@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643124 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 9:56:32 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote: > On 7/27/2017 11:49 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/27/17 11:16 AM, john wrote: > >> Haha. > >> Arindam- > >> > >> Odd is just a woodworker- ignore him. > > > > "Just" a woodworker? OK, John, and from what position are you speaking > > from? What are your credentials in physics, hmmmm? > > john => conceptual spinny ideas Sergio = slimey troll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8466c085-1de0-4c5f-804b-7136c8a78fef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642791 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:53:45 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: [] > > The number is infinite. When the universe is infinite, the number of galaxies > have to be infinite. The universe will always be bigger than the biggest > telescopes that can be made. > > Is it pure meanness that prevents people from accepting the idea of the infinite? > Now this is a philosophical question. You are stuck in the 1400's with your view of what is accepted. No modern physicist/cosmologist would disagree with the idea that the universe is infinite. Since you are arguing from false premises, you come to wrong conclusions. Try reading a recent cosmology book. It may help. Who knows, you may enjoy it and actually learn that at least this idea of yours is also what modern cosmology accepts. Cheers, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olda26$1csl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642854 |
On 7/27/17 12:51 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:53:45 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > [] >> >> The number is infinite. When the universe is infinite, the number of galaxies >> have to be infinite. The universe will always be bigger than the biggest >> telescopes that can be made. >> >> Is it pure meanness that prevents people from accepting the idea of the infinite? >> Now this is a philosophical question. > > You are stuck in the 1400's with your view of what is accepted. > No modern physicist/cosmologist would disagree with the idea > that the universe is infinite. > > Since you are arguing from false premises, > you come to wrong conclusions. > > Try reading a recent cosmology book. It may help. > Who knows, you may enjoy it and actually learn > that at least this idea of yours is also what > modern cosmology accepts. > > Cheers, > ed > I think you will find that self-proclaimed geniuses make that proclamation partly as an excuse to never pick up a book again. Why read a book when they are all wrong? Why stoop to lesser men's ideas when you are at the top of the scientific food chain? It's amazing how much egomania is a mask for the fear of failure and profound laziness and avoidance of unwanted work. Pinch any egomaniac, and he will cite all these common excuses for avoiding actually studying a subject. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olfsa6$1ifq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642862 |
On 7/27/2017 1:05 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/17 12:51 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:53:45 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> [] >>> >>> The number is infinite. When the universe is infinite, the number of >>> galaxies >>> have to be infinite. The universe will always be bigger than the biggest >>> telescopes that can be made. >>> >>> Is it pure meanness that prevents people from accepting the idea of >>> the infinite? >>> Now this is a philosophical question. >> You are stuck in the 1400's with your view of what is accepted. >> No modern physicist/cosmologist would disagree with the idea >> that the universe is infinite. >> >> Since you are arguing from false premises, >> you come to wrong conclusions. >> >> Try reading a recent cosmology book. It may help. >> Who knows, you may enjoy it and actually learn >> that at least this idea of yours is also what >> modern cosmology accepts. >> >> Cheers, >> ed >> > I think you will find that self-proclaimed geniuses make that > proclamation partly as an excuse to never pick up a book again. Why read > a book when they are all wrong? Why stoop to lesser men's ideas when you > are at the top of the scientific food chain? > > It's amazing how much egomania is a mask for the fear of failure and > profound laziness and avoidance of unwanted work. > > Pinch any egomaniac, and he will cite all these common excuses for > avoiding actually studying a subject. > there are very few out there that will read a non fiction science/math/physics type book all the way through. garage sales had lots of technical older books cheap, now ebay has them, cheap. a hobby I have is reading these types of books, just got one on Nuclear Engineering for $3, 750pages, chapter on "reflector" material and "leakage" !! never knew that. neutrons leaking out by the trillions from reactors in all directions. interesting field
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c46e1688-8451-482d-a0f7-a5daa33c2c14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643134 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:29:52 AM UTC-7, Serg io wrote: > there are very few out there that will read a non fiction > science/math/physics type book all the way through. > > garage sales had lots of technical older books cheap, now ebay has them, > cheap. a hobby I have is reading these types of books, just got one on > Nuclear Engineering for $3, 750pages, chapter on "reflector" material > and "leakage" !! never knew that. neutrons leaking out by the > trillions from reactors in all directions. interesting field Intelligence and intellectual courage don't come in a book. Trolls like to inform the world that they read scientific literature. Reading is no substitute for the hard work that is involved with achieving real expertise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 21:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae149f59-6536-40e8-bdb2-94a0d38a46d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642716 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:44:06 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 1:02:32 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/25/17 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:21:01 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> On 7/25/17 5:09 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:33:30 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> On 7/23/17 3:11 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > >>>>> When the Universe is infinite it cannot expand. > > >>>>> So the Universe cannot be expanding. > > >>>> > > >>>> This is simply not true. What you are demanding in your head is that > > >>>> expansion can only be determined by looking at the motion of an > > >>>> endpoint. But that is an extremely limited imagination. It's very easy > > >>>> to correct that limitation: > > >>>> > > >>>> Let's suppose you take an infinitely long line, perhaps a wire even. On > > >>>> this wire we make marks every decimeter. We label this one by me "0" by > > >>>> completely arbitrary choice. There is one nearby we'll label "1". The > > >>>> next one further away we'll label "2", and so on. There will be no limit > > >>>> to the size of the integer that gets assigned to each mark, because the > > >>>> wire is infinite in length. Likewise we can look in the other direction > > >>>> and see another mark nearby, which we label "1'", and the next "2'" and > > >>>> so on. Now all the infinite number of marks have labels, each unique. > > >>> > > >>> Okay so far. > > >>>> > > >>>> There is nothing that bends the mind about this, is there? > > >>>> > > >>>> OK, so tomorrow you come back and you notice that the mark "1" is no > > >>>> longer a decimeter from "0", but is instead 1.00167598 decimeters from > > >>>> "0". Likewise, the mark "2" is no longer 2 decimeters from "0" but is > > >>>> now 2.00335196 decimeters from "0". > > >>> > > >>> This does not happen. > > >> > > >> Oh, but it does. That is in fact the observation. Landmarks that are a > > >> certain distance away are EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED to be, aside from > > >> minor fluctuations, receding. Therefore tomorrow they are a larger > > >> distance away than they were today. And the rate of recession is > > >> proportional to the distance to the landmark, which is EXACTLY what I > > >> have described. > > > > > > Utter rubbish. > > > There is no way a scale increases its size over time as you say. > > > > This you say, but normally scientists have to have a REASON to believe > > statements like this. You don't. You just believe it. > > That is what the way the pseudos-scientists operate. They want the masses > to believe whatever they say. > Take their lies for truth. > What I do is to make video films and show them to all, thus concentrating upon > the basics. > As they are all frauds (see how much they need anonymity here, those cowards) > they cannot go into the basics. > For it will expose them as frauds. > > > > > Meanwhile, direct OBSERVATIONS say that the scale increases. You then > > retort that unless you can make those observations in your garage, then > > they are observations by an elite that should be dismissed automatically > > as garbage. > > > > This is not how a scientist things or operates. > > It is the way the modern pseudo-scientist who is a liar to his marrow, a > thief and fraud operating not on honesty but anonymity, operates. > It is the present way as we all can see. > Unless the public mind is totally gone, at least some among them will see > through this imposture. > > > > > > It remains just the same. > > > Honest scientists have held this a fact. > > > However crooks needed to justify the e=mcc nonsense and came up with the > > > expanding universe and big bang theory. > > > > > > The only "proof" of this is redshift. > > > > > > Which ignores the reality of blueshift. > > > > > > Blueshift shows the galaxies are coming towards us, and redshift shows they > > > are going away from us. > > > > Hubble's observation showed that the number of galaxies exhibiting > > redshift is far, far, far greater than those exhibiting blueshift. The > > data are right there for your inspection, rather than you just making up > > an equality of redshift and blueshift. > > A lie. > Data can be manufactured by liars for fooling the public. > Like the hoaxes about carbon dioxide etc. which are now getting found out. > Why should one believe what liars say? > All Einsteinians are liars. > No confidence there! > A leaked out early photo showed what is what. > Distant galaxies were found which were never supposed to be there. > For the universe was supposed to be finite, like planet Earth. > But no, it was much bigger and could be even bigger with more powerful > telescopes. > And the early photo showed that blueshift was as prominent as redshift. > Now if the data is cooked to photoshop out the blueshift galaxies then only > the redshift galaxies will remain. > And the crooks will keep on prospering with their lies. > Since their masters are also crooks, this will be a cosy situation for all of > them. > But science depends upon truth and honesty. > Which is why the Hubble photo was leaked out long ago, before all the tampering > could begin. > > > In any case, the crooks cannot deny that galaxies exist far far away and so > the universe is infinite if by infinite we mean that existence will be there > beyond the scope of measurement, always. > > > > > > > > That way the universe is as much contracting as expanding. > > > > > > Which shows apart from Hubble itself which made the universe much bigger, that > > > the universe is infinite, when we define infinity as reality extending beyond > > > the scope of measurement, indefinitely. > > > > > > Dishonesty by opportunistic selection is anti-science. > > > > > > Those who practice it so fluently are criminals. > > > > > > The fact is that these criminals rule the science world, and so all is > > > confusion caused by nonsense speculations covered up with math mumbo-jumbo. > > > > I take it you are upset that physics involves so much math expertise, > > which is frustrating to you, given the high opinion you have of > > yourself. It is simply unacceptable to you that there are things in > > physics you do not understand, and so you call that a criminal act of > > obfuscation. This is an emotional problem, not a real one. > > No, I have made my living and modest fortune with the application of mathematics > to practical work. > > One criticism was that no one understood my maths, but they all agreed that it > worked beautifully and solved the existing problems. > > I invented mathematical modelling for complex systems, in a thorough way, and > used the resulting tools to make prototypes, which were developed and tested > in a first-time-right basis for the modelling has already provided the > best dimensions and tolerances and standards. > > With such approaches, I modelled radiators, microwave elements, phased array > antennas for radiation patterns, video extractors, for the largest electronics > company in India, Bharat Electronics, for 12 years. > > Then I used the same approach in Telstra Research Labs to model security > protocols (well, this was more mathematical software routine development like > multiprecision arithmetic for authentication protocols routinely used these > days to buy things online), then Common Channel Signalling 7 dimensioning > protocols where I wrote a paper for Australia relating to ITU standardisation of > signalling, it was important as I showed the real nature of the traffic to be > Gaussian; then I worked upon the modelling of various queuing system, and indeed > I made my name with improving the teletraffic performance of call centres. Then > I made simpler versions of same with MG1 queuing theory, updated that to suit > reality and match with the earlier software simulation. > > I did more software work after our labs were abolished, but that was not so > much mathematical as database. Oh, I am forgetting the model I made to make > robots talk to each other very fast via a new protocol. > > Anyway, these days my maths has taken a new turn, to the making of new motors. > Someone interested may check out the mathematics relating to anti-gravity which > is slightly challenging, and presented in IFE-7. It is necessary to go through > all the video films to have a complete understanding. > > Thanks for your interest, not that it was kind, but it was useful for me to > show off. It is necessary to show off, sometimes. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > IFE - 8 New Physics > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee ====================== very nice !! yet physics is a profession that you have to learn all over your life !! and PHYSICS IS NOT ONLY MATHEMATICS !! it is much more complicated !!! 2 Newton s fist law of motion is not enough !!!and not all along compatible IT MUST BE EXPANDED !! === TIA Y.Porat ========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 02:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62a1eb2f-aca4-4049-bf29-ace4c947ba63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642761 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 2:54:16 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:44:06 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 1:02:32 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 7/25/17 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 8:21:01 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> On 7/25/17 5:09 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>> On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:33:30 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>>> On 7/23/17 3:11 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > >>>>> When the Universe is infinite it cannot expand. > > > >>>>> So the Universe cannot be expanding. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This is simply not true. What you are demanding in your head is that > > > >>>> expansion can only be determined by looking at the motion of an > > > >>>> endpoint. But that is an extremely limited imagination. It's very easy > > > >>>> to correct that limitation: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Let's suppose you take an infinitely long line, perhaps a wire even. On > > > >>>> this wire we make marks every decimeter. We label this one by me "0" by > > > >>>> completely arbitrary choice. There is one nearby we'll label "1". The > > > >>>> next one further away we'll label "2", and so on. There will be no limit > > > >>>> to the size of the integer that gets assigned to each mark, because the > > > >>>> wire is infinite in length. Likewise we can look in the other direction > > > >>>> and see another mark nearby, which we label "1'", and the next "2'" and > > > >>>> so on. Now all the infinite number of marks have labels, each unique. > > > >>> > > > >>> Okay so far. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> There is nothing that bends the mind about this, is there? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> OK, so tomorrow you come back and you notice that the mark "1" is no > > > >>>> longer a decimeter from "0", but is instead 1.00167598 decimeters from > > > >>>> "0". Likewise, the mark "2" is no longer 2 decimeters from "0" but is > > > >>>> now 2.00335196 decimeters from "0". > > > >>> > > > >>> This does not happen. > > > >> > > > >> Oh, but it does. That is in fact the observation. Landmarks that are a > > > >> certain distance away are EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED to be, aside from > > > >> minor fluctuations, receding. Therefore tomorrow they are a larger > > > >> distance away than they were today. And the rate of recession is > > > >> proportional to the distance to the landmark, which is EXACTLY what I > > > >> have described. > > > > > > > > Utter rubbish. > > > > There is no way a scale increases its size over time as you say. > > > > > > This you say, but normally scientists have to have a REASON to believe > > > statements like this. You don't. You just believe it. > > > > That is what the way the pseudos-scientists operate. They want the masses > > to believe whatever they say. > > Take their lies for truth. > > What I do is to make video films and show them to all, thus concentrating upon > > the basics. > > As they are all frauds (see how much they need anonymity here, those cowards) > > they cannot go into the basics. > > For it will expose them as frauds. > > > > > > > > Meanwhile, direct OBSERVATIONS say that the scale increases. You then > > > retort that unless you can make those observations in your garage, then > > > they are observations by an elite that should be dismissed automatically > > > as garbage. > > > > > > This is not how a scientist things or operates. > > > > It is the way the modern pseudo-scientist who is a liar to his marrow, a > > thief and fraud operating not on honesty but anonymity, operates. > > It is the present way as we all can see. > > Unless the public mind is totally gone, at least some among them will see > > through this imposture. > > > > > > > > > It remains just the same. > > > > Honest scientists have held this a fact. > > > > However crooks needed to justify the e=mcc nonsense and came up with the > > > > expanding universe and big bang theory. > > > > > > > > The only "proof" of this is redshift. > > > > > > > > Which ignores the reality of blueshift. > > > > > > > > Blueshift shows the galaxies are coming towards us, and redshift shows they > > > > are going away from us. > > > > > > Hubble's observation showed that the number of galaxies exhibiting > > > redshift is far, far, far greater than those exhibiting blueshift. The > > > data are right there for your inspection, rather than you just making up > > > an equality of redshift and blueshift. > > > > A lie. > > Data can be manufactured by liars for fooling the public. > > Like the hoaxes about carbon dioxide etc. which are now getting found out. > > Why should one believe what liars say? > > All Einsteinians are liars. > > No confidence there! > > A leaked out early photo showed what is what. > > Distant galaxies were found which were never supposed to be there. > > For the universe was supposed to be finite, like planet Earth. > > But no, it was much bigger and could be even bigger with more powerful > > telescopes. > > And the early photo showed that blueshift was as prominent as redshift. > > Now if the data is cooked to photoshop out the blueshift galaxies then only > > the redshift galaxies will remain. > > And the crooks will keep on prospering with their lies. > > Since their masters are also crooks, this will be a cosy situation for all of > > them. > > But science depends upon truth and honesty. > > Which is why the Hubble photo was leaked out long ago, before all the tampering > > could begin. > > > > > > In any case, the crooks cannot deny that galaxies exist far far away and so > > the universe is infinite if by infinite we mean that existence will be there > > beyond the scope of measurement, always. > > > > > > > > > > > That way the universe is as much contracting as expanding. > > > > > > > > Which shows apart from Hubble itself which made the universe much bigger, that > > > > the universe is infinite, when we define infinity as reality extending beyond > > > > the scope of measurement, indefinitely. > > > > > > > > Dishonesty by opportunistic selection is anti-science. > > > > > > > > Those who practice it so fluently are criminals. > > > > > > > > The fact is that these criminals rule the science world, and so all is > > > > confusion caused by nonsense speculations covered up with math mumbo-jumbo. > > > > > > I take it you are upset that physics involves so much math expertise, > > > which is frustrating to you, given the high opinion you have of > > > yourself. It is simply unacceptable to you that there are things in > > > physics you do not understand, and so you call that a criminal act of > > > obfuscation. This is an emotional problem, not a real one. > > > > No, I have made my living and modest fortune with the application of mathematics > > to practical work. > > > > One criticism was that no one understood my maths, but they all agreed that it > > worked beautifully and solved the existing problems. > > > > I invented mathematical modelling for complex systems, in a thorough way, and > > used the resulting tools to make prototypes, which were developed and tested > > in a first-time-right basis for the modelling has already provided the > > best dimensions and tolerances and standards. > > > > With such approaches, I modelled radiators, microwave elements, phased array > > antennas for radiation patterns, video extractors, for the largest electronics > > company in India, Bharat Electronics, for 12 years. > > > > Then I used the same approach in Telstra Research Labs to model security > > protocols (well, this was more mathematical software routine development like > > multiprecision arithmetic for authentication protocols routinely used these > > days to buy things online), then Common Channel Signalling 7 dimensioning > > protocols where I wrote a paper for Australia relating to ITU standardisation of > > signalling, it was important as I showed the real nature of the traffic to be > > Gaussian; then I worked upon the modelling of various queuing system, and indeed > > I made my name with improving the teletraffic performance of call centres. Then > > I made simpler versions of same with MG1 queuing theory, updated that to suit > > reality and match with the earlier software simulation. > > > > I did more software work after our labs were abolished, but that was not so > > much mathematical as database. Oh, I am forgetting the model I made to make > > robots talk to each other very fast via a new protocol. > > > > Anyway, these days my maths has taken a new turn, to the making of new motors. > > Someone interested may check out the mathematics relating to anti-gravity which > > is slightly challenging, and presented in IFE-7. It is necessary to go through > > all the video films to have a complete understanding. > > > > Thanks for your interest, not that it was kind, but it was useful for me to > > show off. It is necessary to show off, sometimes. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg > > IFE - 1 Ground Experiments > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s > > IFE - 2 Experimental setups > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno > > IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU > > IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc > > IFE - 6 Spaceship Design > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA > > IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY > > IFE - 8 New Physics > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > ====================== > very nice !! > yet > physics is a profession that you have to learn all over your life !! > and > > PHYSICS IS NOT ONLY MATHEMATICS !! Mathematics is the way to express physics concisely. > > it is much more complicated !!! Of course. One gets into very complicated mathematics with spherical coordinates and special functions to model em waves, etc. > 2 > Newton s fist law of motion > is not enough !!!and not all along compatible > > IT MUST BE EXPANDED !! Well I have done that. > === > TIA > Y.Porat > ========================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 16:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e7bb1163-dbe6-41c5-a09c-842a1a594523@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642482 |
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:33:30 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 7/23/17 3:11 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > When the Universe is infinite it cannot expand. > > > So the Universe cannot be expanding. > > > > This is simply not true. What you are demanding in your head is that > > expansion can only be determined by looking at the motion of an > > endpoint. But that is an extremely limited imagination. It's very easy > > to correct that limitation: [] > > > > There is nothing that bends the mind about this, is there? > > > > OK, so tomorrow you come back and you notice that the mark "1" is no > > longer a decimeter from "0", but is instead 1.00167598 decimeters from > > "0". Likewise, the mark "2" is no longer 2 decimeters from "0" but is > > now 2.00335196 decimeters from "0". > > This does not happen. To think it does is EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKERY. > And all those who think it does are EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKS. IOW, you don't understand this and therefore resort to rants and fowl language. > > > > Clearly, we have evidence that this infinite wire is expanding. There is > > no doubt of it. And we made this determination without any observation > > (or in fact evidence of) an endpoint to the wire. > > > > Don't let your mind be trapped by hidden assumptions. > > Don't be an Einsteinian dumbfuck. Arindam, you are letting yourself be stuck in 19th century physics. you can stay back there if you want but physics has learned a lot more since then. So for example in another post you said about the same number of galaxies are approaching us as receding from us. Sorry, but that is proven wrong by the observational evidence. Don't be so closed-minded. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-25 16:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddb3ae59-182d-4587-84dc-6cc2c0e64c78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642499 |
On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 9:30:34 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:33:30 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 7/23/17 3:11 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > When the Universe is infinite it cannot expand. > > > > So the Universe cannot be expanding. > > > > > > This is simply not true. What you are demanding in your head is that > > > expansion can only be determined by looking at the motion of an > > > endpoint. But that is an extremely limited imagination. It's very easy > > > to correct that limitation: > [] > > > > > > There is nothing that bends the mind about this, is there? > > > > > > OK, so tomorrow you come back and you notice that the mark "1" is no > > > longer a decimeter from "0", but is instead 1.00167598 decimeters from > > > "0". Likewise, the mark "2" is no longer 2 decimeters from "0" but is > > > now 2.00335196 decimeters from "0". > > > > This does not happen. To think it does is EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKERY. > > And all those who think it does are EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKS. > > IOW, you don't understand this and therefore resort to > rants and fowl language. > > > > > > > Clearly, we have evidence that this infinite wire is expanding. There is > > > no doubt of it. And we made this determination without any observation > > > (or in fact evidence of) an endpoint to the wire. > > > > > > Don't let your mind be trapped by hidden assumptions. > > > > Don't be an Einsteinian dumbfuck. > > Arindam, > you are letting yourself be stuck in 19th century physics. > you can stay back there if you want but physics has learned > a lot more since then. No they have not. They have gone off the rails. Just like a computer program gone wrong with bad inputs or bad code. Engineers know what to do when that happens. You go back to the past when things were stable and reasonable. Study that plateau, then work down with the later developments to come to a stable and reasonable platform which will be the next plateau. Einstein & Co. were the dumbfucks who have corrupted physics. Fortunately, I am in the class of da Vinci and Galileo and Newton, so I can put back the train back on the rails. By correcting the code. > So for example in another post you said about the same number > of galaxies are approaching us as receding from us. Sorry, but > that is proven wrong by the observational evidence. I said that blueshift was as prominent as redshift, and that way yes on the whole as many galaxies should be moving away as coming to us. The whole idea behind Hubble was to show the outer limits of the universe, the universe being a closed contained thing like Earth. That did not happen. Hubble showed more galaxies. I saw a picture showing red and blue galaxies, relating to whether they were coming to us or not. They were about the same. Now, that picture was absolutely stunning, revolutionary. It showed plenty, plenty of galaxies where they were not supposed to be. It also indicated that had Hubble been more powerful, more galaxies would be seen. The universe thus is NOT closed, but open, unlimited and yes infinite in scope. And to repeat, the galaxies are going off in all directions - some coming to us and some going away from us. They do not have to be exactly the same of course in any given photo. The fact that modern physicists totally ignore blueshift, and talk only of redshift, indicates that they are anti-scientific liars, trying to justify the big bang theory by ignoring evidence that does not suit them. > > Don't be so closed-minded. > ed You don't be close minded, and try to understand then my new physics as shown in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg IFE - 1 Ground Experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s IFE - 2 Experimental setups https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc IFE - 6 Spaceship Design https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY IFE - 8 New Physics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38a7cf9e-085b-4126-9d22-95c870142952@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642506 |
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 7:50:15 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 9:30:34 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:33:30 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > On 7/23/17 3:11 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > When the Universe is infinite it cannot expand. > > > > > So the Universe cannot be expanding. > > > > > > > > This is simply not true. What you are demanding in your head is that > > > > expansion can only be determined by looking at the motion of an > > > > endpoint. But that is an extremely limited imagination. It's very easy > > > > to correct that limitation: > > [] > > > > > > > > There is nothing that bends the mind about this, is there? > > > > > > > > OK, so tomorrow you come back and you notice that the mark "1" is no > > > > longer a decimeter from "0", but is instead 1.00167598 decimeters from > > > > "0". Likewise, the mark "2" is no longer 2 decimeters from "0" but is > > > > now 2.00335196 decimeters from "0". > > > > > > This does not happen. To think it does is EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKERY. > > > And all those who think it does are EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKS. > > > > IOW, you don't understand this and therefore resort to > > rants and fowl language. > > > > > > > > > > Clearly, we have evidence that this infinite wire is expanding. There is > > > > no doubt of it. And we made this determination without any observation > > > > (or in fact evidence of) an endpoint to the wire. > > > > > > > > Don't let your mind be trapped by hidden assumptions. > > > > > > Don't be an Einsteinian dumbfuck. > > > > Arindam, > > you are letting yourself be stuck in 19th century physics. > > you can stay back there if you want but physics has learned > > a lot more since then. > > No they have not. > They have gone off the rails. > Just like a computer program gone wrong with bad inputs or bad code. > Engineers know what to do when that happens. > You go back to the past when things were stable and reasonable. > Study that plateau, then work down with the later developments to come to a > stable and reasonable platform which will be the next plateau. > Einstein & Co. were the dumbfucks who have corrupted physics. > Fortunately, I am in the class of da Vinci and Galileo and Newton, so I can > put back the train back on the rails. > By correcting the code. You closed your mind to the stellar shift data. You closed your mind to the many supporting experiments for relativity You are stuck in the 1700's world view. Sorry but you are the modern equivalent of a flat earther. > > > So for example in another post you said about the same number > > of galaxies are approaching us as receding from us. Sorry, but > > that is proven wrong by the observational evidence. > > I said that blueshift was as prominent as redshift, > and that way yes on the > whole as many galaxies should be moving away as coming to us. And how exactly did you determine the shift? > The whole idea behind Hubble was to show the outer limits of the universe, the > universe being a closed contained thing like Earth. > That did not happen. > Hubble showed more galaxies. > I saw a picture showing red and blue galaxies, relating to whether they were > coming to us or not. > They were about the same. > Now, that picture was absolutely stunning, revolutionary. You do know the red shift measurement of motion has nothing to do with the color of the stars, right? > It showed plenty, plenty of galaxies where they were not supposed to be. Who said they were not supposed where? > It also indicated that had Hubble been more powerful, > more galaxies would be seen. At least out to the Cosmic Microwave Background. > The universe thus is NOT closed, but open, unlimited > and yes infinite in scope. Who said it wasn't? Not me. > And to repeat, the galaxies are going off in all > directions - some coming to us > and some going away from us. And in the process of MEASURING their motion, we found most are moving AWAY from us. > They do not have to be exactly the same of course in any given photo. > The fact that modern physicists totally ignore blueshift, and talk only of > redshift, indicates that they are anti-scientific liars, trying to justify > the big bang theory by ignoring evidence that does not suit them. Look at the data. It is shifted red for most cosmic objects. You can take some time and download stellar and galactic data, FOR FREE. Take a look if you don't trust the professional astronomers. > > > > Don't be so closed-minded. > > ed > > You don't be close minded, and try to understand then my new physics > as shown in [snipped spam] I have watched your videos. As I said before, the work is poorly constructed and lacks experimental rigor. I can say, they are a good example of a poorly constructed experiment. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1cf5778-e92a-4c5d-8173-9822fe4ebe43@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642836 |
ed Galaxies can be redder or bluer for 3 reasons: distance, motion, or intrinsic galactic energy (more red old stars or more blue young stars). I don't trust the 'everything accelerating away' conclusion because it puts us at the exact Center of some amazing Cosmic phenomenon, for one thing, plus, whatever do you think it's going INTO? Nothingness? What??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <old8nb$1ajg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642841 |
On 7/27/17 12:35 PM, john wrote: > ed > Galaxies can be redder or bluer for 3 reasons: > distance, motion, or intrinsic galactic energy (more red old stars or more blue young stars). > I don't trust the 'everything accelerating away' conclusion because it puts us at the exact > Center of some amazing Cosmic phenomenon, for one thing, plus, whatever do you think it's going INTO? Nothingness? What?? > John, you have problem with expansion and do not understand how something infinite can expand, because you ONLY see expansion as the movement of a boundary. Expansion can be determined without any knowledge of any boundary at all. Furthermore, uniform expansion can happen with no center whatsoever. Again, your thinking about requiring a center is bound up with picturing a boundary when no boundary is needed. You're a big fan of infinities, but you seem trapped up with the concepts of finite things. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2eb3cfa3-9a08-4219-ae46-378f662d0e92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642846 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:43:13 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > I don't trust the 'everything accelerating away' conclusion because it puts us at the exact > Center of some amazing Cosmic phenomenon, for one thing, plus, > whatever do you think it's going INTO? Nothingness? What?? > > > > John, you have problem with expansion You have to be a brain-dead troll to not have problems with that notion. BTW, it is a conjecture, you fucking mental retard. It is not proven. and do not understand how > something infinite can expand, because you ONLY see expansion as the > movement of a boundary. Expansion can be determined without any > knowledge of any boundary at all. Like you have a fucking clue. You are a pedantic fool. > > Furthermore, uniform expansion can happen with no center whatsoever. > Again, your thinking about requiring a center is bound up with picturing > a boundary when no boundary is needed. > > You're a big fan of infinities, but you seem trapped up with the > concepts of finite things. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web