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 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <old6fn$16c1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642829 |
On 7/27/17 11:50 AM, john wrote: > ey, Odd? > You're a woodworker. > Unless you're a lying, cowardly scientist. > As a woodworker, you should preface all your opinions as coming from such and having no pretence of representing Science. > As a lying, cowardly scientist, you could do Im not sure what... > Climate change? And you, John, should you preface every one of your posts as coming from a position of no expertise in science? I make no pretenses about being an active professional scientist. I've always stated that I am a woodworker and a hobbyist at physics. If the only people on this group that could respond to Arindam's rather silly posts would be physicists, then you, John, would have to shut the fuck up yourself. I've read a hell of a lot more than you on the subject, John. You of all people should not be criticizing other hobbyists, because you're not only a hobbyist but a profoundly uneducated one to boot. Get that reality firmly locked into your own personal position statement. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4fdaeee-9386-4a43-b9f2-32b5745f2b45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642832 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:05:06 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/17 11:50 AM, john wrote: > > ey, Odd? > > You're a woodworker. > > Unless you're a lying, cowardly scientist. > > As a woodworker, you should preface all your opinions as coming from such and having no pretence of representing Science. > > As a lying, cowardly scientist, you could do Im not sure what... > > Climate change? > > And you, John, should you preface every one of your posts as coming from > a position of no expertise in science? You are a coward that won't confront John's thinking on its own terms. > > I make no pretenses about being an active professional scientist. All you have is pretense. You have no real argument--ever! I've > always stated that I am a woodworker and a hobbyist at physics. You are just a troll. Science involves hard work with no promise of a good outcome. You are just a lazy troll. > > If the only people on this group that could respond to Arindam's rather > silly posts would be physicists, then you, John, would have to shut the > fuck up yourself. Fuck you, you fucking lying slimey, worthless piece of troll shit. > > I've read a hell of a lot more than you on the subject, John. You of all > people should not be criticizing other hobbyists, because you're not > only a hobbyist but a profoundly uneducated one to boot. Get that > reality firmly locked into your own personal position statement. That is no excuse for being a lying coward. You are just a petty, self-centered prick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96d71a45-6d5f-42b5-a95f-81cea81fa8dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642829 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > As a lying, cowardly scientist, you could do Im not sure what... > Climate change? Don't forget meteorology too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a60aafd-5c64-4f38-bad9-8c7ca74ecc5e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642833 |
Odd Don't worry. Opinions of a woodworker. Can do all the calculus, though. Got it on his slide rule. Just read it in a book. No problem. Must be nice. I am also a science enthusiast. Not everything is in books. Lots of stuff gets 'disincluded' because it runs counter to current science belief. In 1962 we had a "special interests " Friday afternoon for the Grade 7 kids with A averages. I chose Science. But I was into Science way before that, cracking rocks to expose sea fossils (Saskatchewan is an ancient sea bed), learning about crystals and slings and boomerangs. So I've seen stuff you've never seen, and never will see- plus, I'm afraid your mind is closed, Odd. There are a zillion RED FLAGS out there, and you're calling them all kooks. There are more things in this Universe than are contained in your philosophy Horatio-Odd. Look into that beautiful wood grain. Are any two the same, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <old926$1b8r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642838 |
On 7/27/17 12:26 PM, john wrote: > Odd > > Don't worry. > Opinions of a woodworker. > Can do all the calculus, though. > Got it on his slide rule. > Just read it in a book. > No problem. > Must be nice. It helps, John. You should try it sometime. It's called educating yourself. > > > I am also a science enthusiast. > Not everything is in books. But the GOOD stuff is in books. There is vast piles of stuff outside of books that is 99.9% crap. You want to focus on the pile of stuff that is 99.9% crap on the CHANCE that you will discover gold in it. You may as well be digging for diamonds under your driveway. > Lots of stuff gets 'disincluded' because it > runs counter to current science belief. > In 1962 we had a "special interests " Friday > afternoon for the Grade 7 kids with A averages. > I chose Science. > But I was into Science way before that, cracking rocks > to expose sea fossils (Saskatchewan is an ancient > sea bed), learning about crystals and slings and > boomerangs. > So I've seen stuff you've never seen, and never will > see- plus, I'm afraid your mind is closed, Odd. > There are a zillion RED FLAGS out there, and you're > calling them all kooks. The only red flags that you have EVER raised, John, are the things that run counter to John-Sefton-invented laws. And you've already admitted that you don't have any rationale for believing any of your invented laws, you just do believe in them. And so anything that runs counter to your fabricated thoughts, you call a red flag. Not how science works, John. I get that you're a science enthusiast. Being enthused is useless unless you also take the time to EDUCATE yourself in the subject. Which you have not done. > There are more things in this Universe than are > contained in your philosophy Horatio-Odd. > Look into that beautiful wood grain. > Are any two the same, Odd? > And keep in mind, John, that one of the key features of a fractal is self-similarity at all scales. So does this infinite variation of wood fit with your idea of a fractal universe? Hmmmm? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 07:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <373369ce-3aa2-4d84-b274-a94cb8f3d34e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642849 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:49:02 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/27/17 12:26 PM, john wrote: > > Odd > > > > Don't worry. > > Opinions of a woodworker. > > Can do all the calculus, though. > > Got it on his slide rule. > > Just read it in a book. > > No problem. > > Must be nice. > > It helps, John. You should try it sometime. > It's called educating yourself. LOL. Is that your excuse, Bodkin. You are self educated? > > > > > > > I am also a science enthusiast. > > Not everything is in books. > > But the GOOD stuff is in books. Wrong. We can't know what is good or bad apriori. That is why real scientists conduct discourse and experiments. Trolls don't understand this because trolls aren't scientists. You are fucking stupid. > There is vast piles of stuff outside of > books that is 99.9% crap. Trolls are obsessed with certainty. > > You want to focus on the pile of stuff that is 99.9% crap on the CHANCE > that you will discover gold in it. You may as well be digging for > diamonds under your driveway. Fuck you troll. Your analogies stink worse that your science. > > > Lots of stuff gets 'disincluded' because it > > runs counter to current science belief. > > In 1962 we had a "special interests " Friday > > afternoon for the Grade 7 kids with A averages. > > I chose Science. > > But I was into Science way before that, cracking rocks > > to expose sea fossils (Saskatchewan is an ancient > > sea bed), learning about crystals and slings and > > boomerangs. > > So I've seen stuff you've never seen, and never will > > see- plus, I'm afraid your mind is closed, Odd. > > There are a zillion RED FLAGS out there, and you're > > calling them all kooks. > > The only red flags that you have EVER raised, John, are the things that > run counter to John-Sefton-invented laws. And you've already admitted > that you don't have any rationale for believing any of your invented > laws, LOL. It's comical how clueless you trolls are. If you could dispute John's laws you would not have to dismiss them, would you? you just do believe in them. And so anything that runs counter to > your fabricated thoughts, you call a red flag. Are you really this petty. > > Not how science works, John. No, retard, dismissing things for which you have no dispute is not how science works. > > I get that you're a science enthusiast. Being enthused is useless unless > you also take the time to EDUCATE yourself in the subject. Which you > have not done. You are not a scientist, oddball, you are but a petty, ignorant, dishonest, cowardly troll. > > > There are more things in this Universe than are > > contained in your philosophy Horatio-Odd. > > Look into that beautiful wood grain. > > Are any two the same, Odd? > > > > And keep in mind, John, that one of the key features of a fractal is > self-similarity at all scales. So does this infinite variation of wood > fit with your idea of a fractal universe? Hmmmm? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oldho9$8ju$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642838 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >I am also a science enthusiast. Really. From your posts here, I am under the impression that you hate science, and want to bring it down by contaminating it. Or that you got lost looking for alt.poetry or something, and wound up here. You seem to have an artist type mind, not a science one. >Not everything is in books. >Lots of stuff gets 'disincluded' because it >runs counter to current science belief. Ah yes, the unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that science is run by some evil elite group that, for unknown reasons (or just to keep the money gravy flowing), want to supress new discoveries and maintain the status quo, or simply to give that Einstein fellow praise that he doesn't deserve. >In 1962 we had a "special interests " Friday >afternoon for the Grade 7 kids with A averages. >I chose Science. >But I was into Science way before that, cracking rocks >to expose sea fossils (Saskatchewan is an ancient >sea bed), learning about crystals and slings and >boomerangs. Cool. Too bad that you didn't learn science logic, or the scientific method from that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oldh63$8ju$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642829 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM cannot follow a description past 'rotating'. >Try to throw precession in there, and he just starts >spewing invective. No, I am here for the entertainment all you kooks provide. Having said that, I really, really do have to wonder why you insist on throwing precession everywhere, where it simply doesn't belong. OCD or Little Pharma are my guesses, more likely OCD. For some reason, I find your precessing spinny thing OCD obsession very amusing. (see first sentence in this paragraph) >I don't know what he finds so threatening about >following lines of thought different to what he >claims he knows. What lines of thought? You never, ever, ever explain why you believe what you believe, whether it's precession, fundamental particles or what you mistakenly call "suck" gravity (LeSage gravity more closely resembles sucking on a straw). >He claims to be an engineer- Arindam and he should be able to find >lots of common ground. Why won't he even try? At least Odd gives >some sort of sham-try, but that's more to get in close for a >better rip. Arindam doesn't act like an engineer at all. He's a typical science kook that believes that he and his writings are God's Gift to Mankind and doesn't understand why nobody is praising and worshipping him. Odd's writeup is very appropriate for him. >Hey, Odd? >You're a woodworker. >Unless you're a lying, cowardly scientist. >As a woodworker, you should preface all your opinions as coming from >such and having no pretence of representing Science. As should you, as a (definite!) non-scientist, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83e313f4-1234-4054-8e4c-ab72eeadd24c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642829 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > Hey, Odd? > You're a woodworker. > Unless you're a lying, cowardly scientist. > As a woodworker, you should preface all your opinions as coming from such and having no pretence of representing Science. > As a lying, cowardly scientist, you could do Im not sure what... > Climate change? Perfect! Rake the fucking lying worthless pretend scientist over the coals. Odd, you are a fucking lying worthless piece of human filth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b8bdc05b-166f-4aae-8300-71eefec06f57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642829 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > MM cannot follow a description past 'rotating'. Moroney is a fricking troll dumbass. > Try to throw precession in there, and he just starts > spewing invective. > I don't know what he finds so threatening about > following lines of thought different to what he > claims he knows. Science trolls don't do science. They believe certain scientific "facts". But they don't really understand any of it. They just believe it. So these worthless pretenders can't explain anything. They just lie and lie and lie. > He claims to be an engineer- Arindam and he should be able to find lots of common ground. Why won't he even try? Because he's a fucking brain-dead troll. Moroney is a moron. \ At least Odd gives some sort of sham-try, but that's more to get in close for a better rip. > > Hey, Odd? > You're a woodworker. > Unless you're a lying, cowardly scientist. > As a woodworker, you should preface all your opinions as coming from such and having no pretence of representing Science. Trolls are intellectually lazy. > As a lying, cowardly scientist, you could do Im not sure what... > Climate change? Odd is one fucking lying son of a bitch.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e695a7d6-0585-4c84-aceb-2f76f7ba2acc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643100 |
Poor Odd. Just come clean, Odd. The electron is a standing wave of spin in OUR.... shit, what do we call it when referring to one Fractal base or another? I think of them as levels, but they're levels going inward....in OUR dimension. The proton is a standing wave in the dimension below. They form two links in a chain of energy release.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 09:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olnd52$10so$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #643102 |
On 7/28/17 8:22 AM, john wrote: > Poor Odd. > Just come clean, Odd. > > The electron is a standing wave of spin in OUR.... > shit, what do we call it when referring to one Fractal base or another? I think of them as levels, but they're levels going inward....in OUR dimension. > The proton is a standing wave in the dimension below. > > They form two links in a chain of energy release. > I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you mean by "dimension". As in "OUR dimension" or "dimension below". -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-31 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b2e7bfa5-7ac3-4ceb-b323-824e43f97f6a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643599 |
Odd " I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you mean by "dimension". As in "OUR dimension" or "dimension below". " Did I not just say it was each Fractal base? i.e. Level of Matter? Let's see; john " what do we call it when referring to one Fractal base or another? I think of them as levels, but they're levels going inward....dimension. " Yep. Very explicitly. I really don't know why you and MM can't grasp this idea and try to engage rather than sling shit, but to each his own
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-01 02:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oloq4d$gb6$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #643622 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >I really don't know why you and MM can't grasp this idea and try to >engage rather than sling shit, but to each his own I'm sorry, John, but I can't grasp word salad. You do realize that most of what you post is word salad babble, don't you? Don't you? John??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olspuu$1k3l$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #643622 |
On 7/31/17 10:40 AM, john wrote: > Odd > " > I'm pretty sure you don't even know what you mean by "dimension". As in > "OUR dimension" or "dimension below"." > > Did I not just say it was each Fractal base? Let's start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal Now where in there do you see anything about "fractal base"? What in the hell do you mean by "fractal base"? As a further level of amusement, you might want to actually read about the connection between fractals and FRACTIONAL dimensions (in other words, non-integer number of dimensions). The real thing is so much more interesting than the superficial bullshit you make up about it. > i.e. Level of Matter? > Let's see; > john " what do we call it when referring to one Fractal base or another? I think of them as levels, but they're levels going inward....dimension. " > Yep. Very explicitly. > > I really don't know why you and MM can't grasp this idea and try to engage rather than sling shit, but to each his own > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 10:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a597136e-17dd-4f90-8d6b-fc7f85d8766b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642775 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:25:11 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 2:40:28 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes:
[]
> > > Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing.
> > > State what's right/correct.
> >
> > MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that
> > was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in
> > number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the
> > spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way
> > of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted.
> > That bluish object may be a highly redshifted UV or X-Ray emitter.
> > That red object may be a highly blueshifted hot something, giving off
> > infrared light.
>
> The photo clearly showed distant galaxies that were not supposed to be
> there.
Who said they "were not supposed to be there"?
> They were outside the boundaries of the known universe.
Just as America was once outside the boundaries of the known universe
in the 1400's. So what?
> Some were white, some blue and some red.
> The colour coding was about the nature of their shifting.
> The blues were coming to us, the reds going away.
NO, you clearly do not know what the shift is.
It only slightly is related to the overall color
of the object. It is the shift of spectral lines
that are used to measure the overall shift of
the spectra, which is then used to calculate
the relative speed.
> Pretty static, and so infinite.
Static versus infinite are two independent properties of the universe.
>
> However saying that the universe is infinite is a
> big no-no for the Westerners.
Huh? You have some false notions of what others
understand as to the nature of the universe. IOW,
you are fighting against a misunderstanding on your part.
> They burnt one guy at the stake for saying that, Giordanno Bruno I think.
So you have to reach back to the 1500's to find evidence
that westerners are opposed to an infinite universe?
I repeat, you are stuck in the past.
>
> Anyway, what they are saying here
> https://www.space.com/25732-redshift-blueshift.html
> is that the wavelength is actually changing!
> Ridiculous.
No, that is what is measured.
> Wavelength cannot change.
You know this because...
{your answer here please}
> It can only appear to change. What changes is the
> speed of c with velocity.
> So these guys are already wrong to begin with by thinking that c is invariant.
We don't THINK it is invariant, it is based on both theory
(Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations), and data
(measured SOLIV, i.e. c, Mass energy conversion, etc.)
> When they ignore the blueshift galaxies, write them off, then they can make
> the universe expand.
> What is needed is a totally fresh look into the spectral components of the
> distant galaxies by someone impartial.
Go ahead. the data is free.
>
> >
> > Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was
> > already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence),
> > some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction
> > and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point
> > scorecards.
>
> All Einsteinians are crooks and liars as they hold that the speed of c is
> invariant (wavelengths get screwed up instead).
>
> So what if all their text books and journals repeat this lie a trillion times,
> a lie will remain a lie.
If you can prove it, show evidence. Prepare a paper and get it
published in a peer reviewed journal. Do the work.
>
> To support a lie is to be a liar, and that I cannot be.
> Engineers do not work
> like that. They have to depend upon truth. So when the
> physicists have become
> bad, they have to fend for themselves by finding good new physics.
>
> And that is what I have done.
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee
Cheers,
ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 17:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2adc78ae-1d0d-4cea-a0da-9428c691b6e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642760 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:40:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >> >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift > >> >> >galaxies > >> >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > >> >> > >> >> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or > >> >> blueshifted. > >> >> > >> >> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others > >> >> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are > >> >> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and > >> >> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) > > >So a picture is not worth a thousand words? I KNEW IT! I can see clearly now... > > >> No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was > >> blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted? > > >We most all know about the Doppler Effect, especially regards trains. > >The issue with galactic collisions is this: Universal Expansion. Hello?! > > >MM, just let people talk/discuss. Ideas reach on up to become enlightening. > >Your condescending attitude helps nobody in any of the observable galaxies. > >You got something to say/teach/discuss/... start your own damn thread. TIA. > >Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing. State what's right/correct. > > MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that > was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in > number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the > spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way > of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted. Andromeda is headed right towards us stuck in The Milky Way. So they say. > That bluish object may be a highly redshifted UV or X-Ray emitter. > That red object may be a highly blueshifted hot something, giving off > infrared light. And I may be The Queen of England? Exit stage left, Brexit... DanSingħ! MichaelJi, perhaps BanerjeeJi has studied more moving pictures than the one/few he likes/referenced. His tag line of greatest genius of all time, it's endearing, very cute. People deserve respect, it dosen't matter if they're right or wrong. HVAC's a dumbFuck! He he... Why? Simple. All science is only right until proven wrong. By Fridays? Ergo/Also, all science is ipso facto wrong. I don't make tHis sHit up. Btw, calling me MapleJi? That's very kind/polite of you MichaelJi. Thank you. I've attended seminars at NASA GSFC regards scientists reserving Hubble telescope observational times. Very crowded auditoriums. Very argumentative, competitive. Weird really. Regardless, each Principal Investigator would get sole access to up to a year, before the data/images were accessible to others. Images images IMAGES... When I want for pretty pictures, I visit Victoria's Secret websites. While at the seminars, trust me, no Victoria's Secret Models there, I used to, and still do, think: how much galactic motion in a year is observable? Hey maybe there are Victoria's Secret Models under me m(y) pillows? Darn! > Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was > already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence), > some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction > and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point > scorecards. Sure, well read people will react to what's written. That's why one needs to open/continue a discussion with insight/respect. It's polite. In historical fact, there have always been scientific conspiracy theories. Pythagorean Theorem, actually orginated by Egyptians. Burn Bruno Burn, for one. Copernicus who'd publish only after he was dead Dead DEAD. GalileoJi, house arrest. Cold fusion. Of course, things have gotten better, as long as some other corporation can make money off of your ideas, Tesla. TBBT?! Speed limit c. Mach3/Warp7/... And so on... Me m(y) favourite has to be Galileo. Why? Well now we all live under house arrest! Voluntarily! Happily! Joyfully! Lonely! TV! TeeVee... Tiny Dancer in me m(y) hands... Look I know it's risky/dangerous to have an open mind. But think of the alternative. Sure posters can be rude/annoying/repetitive/hecklers/insulting/wasteOfBits/... just ignore them, that's what I try do. I used to be a teaching assistant, for like five years, with like 60+ students per class, one eventually learns to identify and ignore the trolls. Regardless, better to allow all to speak their minds' ideas, however worthless/useless. When I go to a bar for a drink or two, ...or whatever, I sit next to a stranger, the one thing I don't do/say is: You're an Idiot, get out! I'm going to be the suave guy just sitting at the bar quietly drinking, while the rest of you cowboys smash barstools over each others' heads and exhange punches. Carry on. Balloom Blitz, Sweet! https://www.google.com/search?q=ballroom+blitz More Physics, Less Math! -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Poet Pla(y)ing Tennis! Grasshopper Mode...” Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba97d074-6f3a-4525-bb55-ae85c6f2e253@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642976 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 10:11:49 AM UTC+10, Mahipal wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:40:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: > > > > >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > > > >> >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift > > >> >> >galaxies > > >> >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. > > >> >> > > >> >> You can't tell from an ordinary photo which galaxies are redshifted or > > >> >> blueshifted. > > >> >> > > >> >> Oh wait, you saw in that photo some galaxies that were bluish and others > > >> >> that were reddish, right? And you thought the blue galaxies are > > >> >> blueSHIFTED and the red ones are redSHIFTED, didn't you? Hahahahaha!! (and > > >> >> what if that picture was false color to begin with?) > > > > >So a picture is not worth a thousand words? I KNEW IT! I can see clearly now... > > > > >> No comment whether I was correct that you thought a bluish appearing galaxy was > > >> blueshifted and a reddish one was redshifted? > > > > >We most all know about the Doppler Effect, especially regards trains. > > >The issue with galactic collisions is this: Universal Expansion. Hello?! > > > > >MM, just let people talk/discuss. Ideas reach on up to become enlightening. > > >Your condescending attitude helps nobody in any of the observable galaxies. > > >You got something to say/teach/discuss/... start your own damn thread. TIA. > > >Just stating everybody else is wrong does nothing. State what's right/correct. > > > > MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that > > was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in > > number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the > > spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way > > of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted. > > Andromeda is headed right towards us stuck in The Milky Way. So they say. > > > That bluish object may be a highly redshifted UV or X-Ray emitter. > > That red object may be a highly blueshifted hot something, giving off > > infrared light. > > And I may be The Queen of England? Exit stage left, Brexit... DanSingħ! > > MichaelJi, perhaps BanerjeeJi has studied more moving pictures than > the one/few he likes/referenced. His tag line of greatest genius of > all time, it's endearing, very cute. People deserve respect, it > dosen't matter if they're right or wrong. Some deserve more respect than others. Far more respect. Otherwise society suffers. In my case, I cannot help being the greatest genius of all time. It is a gift. People I know remember what I said or wrote many decades ago. I have to make the best use of my genius, regardless of the bastards_allsorts. While they are a pain and and an inconvenience too, well so what as the greatest genius of all time I should thus know how to keep them under control. They can only delay the growth and impact of all my new ideas and methods, that they can and that they do. As racists-bigots and their cowardly supporters (when not white) what else can they do. Supporting me is a big no-no, these wretches fear for their jobs and careers. What bothers me is that when these wretches get old and retire, they still remain with their cult and won't give that up. Although they have enough wits to know they are totally wrong. Something deep here: great pig-headed ego, vanity, envy, desire to please the peers - various aspects of meanness and inertia. Only atheism could divorce these creatures so freely and completely from the simple claims of morality. Sad, but life will go on. In a recent fb post to an old colleague I have said how the greatest devils stopping progress in India are 2-3 lazy and corrupt academics who have blocked the development of the Hydrogen Transmission Network. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network On the other hand, the good news is that school leavers are getting hired and that should decrease the power of the professors. One can only hope. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > HVAC's a dumbFuck! He he... Like all members of the e=mcc cult. > > Why? Simple. All science is only right until proven wrong. By Fridays? > Ergo/Also, all science is ipso facto wrong. I don't make tHis sHit up. > > Btw, calling me MapleJi? That's very kind/polite of you MichaelJi. Thank you. > > I've attended seminars at NASA GSFC regards scientists reserving > Hubble telescope observational times. Very crowded auditoriums. Very > argumentative, competitive. Weird really. Regardless, each Principal > Investigator would get sole access to up to a year, before the > data/images were accessible to others. Images images IMAGES... > When I want for pretty pictures, I visit Victoria's Secret websites. > > While at the seminars, trust me, no Victoria's Secret Models there, I used > to, and still do, think: how much galactic motion in a year is observable? > > Hey maybe there are Victoria's Secret Models under me m(y) pillows? Darn! > > > Maybe I was condescending, but by the time I posted this, Arindam was > > already spewing about scientific conspiracy theories (with no evidence), > > some need to "correct" physics which has no evidence of needing correction > > and several other actions that earn many points on the kook point > > scorecards. > > Sure, well read people will react to what's written. That's why one > needs to open/continue a discussion with insight/respect. It's polite. > > In historical fact, there have always been scientific conspiracy theories. > Pythagorean Theorem, actually orginated by Egyptians. Burn Bruno Burn, > for one. Copernicus who'd publish only after he was dead Dead DEAD. > GalileoJi, house arrest. Cold fusion. Of course, things have gotten > better, as long as some other corporation can make money off of your > ideas, Tesla. TBBT?! Speed limit c. Mach3/Warp7/... And so on... > > Me m(y) favourite has to be Galileo. Why? Well now we all live under house arrest! > Voluntarily! Happily! Joyfully! Lonely! TV! TeeVee... Tiny Dancer in me m(y) hands... > > Look I know it's risky/dangerous to have an open mind. But think of the alternative. > > Sure posters can be rude/annoying/repetitive/hecklers/insulting/wasteOfBits/... > just ignore them, that's what I try do. I used to be a teaching assistant, > for like five years, with like 60+ students per class, one eventually > learns to identify and ignore the trolls. Regardless, better to allow > all to speak their minds' ideas, however worthless/useless. > > When I go to a bar for a drink or two, ...or whatever, I sit next to a > stranger, the one thing I don't do/say is: You're an Idiot, get out! > > I'm going to be the suave guy just sitting at the bar quietly > drinking, while the rest of you cowboys smash barstools over each > others' heads and exhange punches. Carry on. Balloom Blitz, Sweet! > https://www.google.com/search?q=ballroom+blitz More Physics, Less Math! > > -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Poet Pla(y)ing Tennis! Grasshopper Mode...” > Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 04:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oleeo5$5ni$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642976 |
Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: >On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 12:40:28 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 1:35:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >> >The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift >> >> >> >galaxies >> >> >> >and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. ... >> MapleJi, I was commenting on the description of the Hubble picture that >> was claimed to contain redshifted and blueshifted galaxies "comparable in >> number". Unless the picture is of monochromatic objects, or of the >> spectrums of the galaxies (not the galaxies themselves), he has no way >> of telling which galaxies are redshifted and which are blueshifted. >Andromeda is headed right towards us stuck in The Milky Way. So they say. And 3 Bazillion galaxies are heading directly away. So they say. Now the score is 3 Bazillion to 1! The Redshift fans were hoping for a shutout, but the Blueshift team's Star Player, Andromeda, ruined the Redshift fans hopes! >MichaelJi, perhaps BanerjeeJi has studied more moving pictures than >the one/few he likes/referenced. Nope. See where I quoted him at the top of this post. "The only photo I saw from Hubble..." >Btw, calling me MapleJi? That's very kind/polite of you MichaelJi. Thank you. I know zero Hindi, or Sanskrit, or whatever language that is from, but I did pick up that usage. I agree people deserve to be treated with respect, but I also treat people how they treat me. See ArchiePoo writing posts explicitly to attack/insult me and others, so I reply in kind, even giving him a not-so-subtle hint that normally I would let him fail in peace. >I've attended seminars at NASA GSFC regards scientists reserving >Hubble telescope observational times. Very crowded auditoriums. Very >argumentative, competitive. Weird really. Regardless, each Principal >Investigator would get sole access to up to a year, before the >data/images were accessible to others. Images images IMAGES... >When I want for pretty pictures, I visit Victoria's Secret websites. yeah, NASA has weird rules. Scientists schedule Hubble time and get to keep the resulting images to themselves for a while. I guess the idea is others can't "cheat" and grab the images after the first group went through the effort to figure out what to look for, only to have the second group possibly beat the first without putting as much work into it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-26 03:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <81012de4-b1a3-47c7-9a15-473eb6b354c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642569 |
Banjo says > > Again your lack of even a tenuous grasp regarding astrophysics or cosmology has failed you. Statistical analysis Lies, damned lies and statistics. The only photo I saw from Hubble showed clearly that the blueshift galaxies and redshift galaxies were comparable in number. That is enough for me, and everyone. ------------- Wait. I thought BJ was the spokesman for 'everyone'. That's what he claims anyway. I think the two of you should have a Kookfight(tm) to decide this issue. Until then, I'll go with BJ being the head kook spokesman. He provides better bullshit for his bogus assertions than "I saw a picture once". Work on it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web