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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1eef8fc5-06d1-46a2-8529-ef3c0fc35ea1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642841 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 1:35:11 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed > Galaxies can be redder or bluer for 3 reasons: > distance, motion, or intrinsic galactic energy (more red old stars or more blue young stars). > I don't trust the 'everything accelerating away' conclusion > because it puts us at the exact Center of some amazing Cosmic > phenomenon, for one thing, plus, whatever do you think it's > going INTO? Nothingness? What?? 1. It does not put us in the center. 2. It doesn't need to expand into anything. 3. The color of the star or galaxy is NOT how the spectral shift is measured. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oldig4$8ju$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642841 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >ed >Galaxies can be redder or bluer for 3 reasons: >distance, motion, or intrinsic galactic energy (more red old stars or more blue young stars). >I don't trust the 'everything accelerating away' conclusion because it puts us at the exact >Center of some amazing Cosmic phenomenon, for one thing, plus, whatever do you think it's >going INTO? Nothingness? What?? So John, where is the center of the circumference of a circle? Not the center of the circle, the center of its circumference, the outside edge? Where is the center of the surface of a sphere? Again, not the center of the sphere, the center of its outside surface? Or think of it this way. Where is the center of the surface of the earth? Not the center of the earth itself, thousands of miles below your feet. The center of its surface. What country is it in? Is there a monument there that people can visit? Or is it in the middle of the ocean? Think of it, where you are, somewhere in Canada, you think of yourself and your lake cabin as being at the center of the world. Odd likely thinks of his woodworking workshop, at his favorite woodworking machine, as at the center of the world. Similarly we can see ourself as being at the center of the universe. Where is Wormley, to remind us "No Center" whenever someone brings this up as some apparent contradiction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69df9ebe-e742-4c9f-9349-1c5e15688291@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642905 |
MM Describe this "nothingness" that you think we're expanding into, universally (which is impossible, but whatever
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 16:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oldm0q$13m$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642916 |
On 7/27/17 4:17 PM, john wrote: > MM > Describe this "nothingness" that you think we're expanding into, universally (which is impossible, but whatever > We're not expanding into ANYTHING. There is no boundary, therefore no movement of any boundary. There is no edge to the universe, John, no edge to move. You like infinities, and you believe the universe is infinite. Infinite things do not have to be static. Why would you think they are? I've already JUST TODAY described how to imagine the expansion of an infinite line. What about that do you not understand? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <988d6bd6-84df-4eec-bc06-b617859fa78c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642921 |
Odd Okay. Let's set your sights a little lower. You were attributing the effects of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field in pushing the planets away from the Sun to the so-called universal expansion. How does universal expansion create the suns magnetic field?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 16:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oldngu$3bd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642925 |
On 7/27/17 4:34 PM, john wrote: > Odd > > Okay. > Let's set your sights a little lower. > You were attributing the effects of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field in pushing the planets away from the Sun to the so-called universal expansion. > How does universal expansion create the suns magnetic field? > No, John. That is NOT what I said. There are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT factors that result in the change in orbit of the earth around the sun. One is the expansion of the universe. One is the transfer of angular momentum from the sun to the earth. One is the solar wind. These are INDEPENDENT and one is not the cause of the other. It's like causes of death, John. One is cancer, another is stroke, another is being hit by a bus. I can assure you that having cancer is not the cause of being hit by a bus, nor is being hit by a bus the cause of cancer. Put down the joint. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-27 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4b47ebf-be80-47a2-81c1-d0db62383c7d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642934 |
Odd The Milky Way could be a CH2 molecule in a reaction in the stomach of a gut bacterium in some fly. And you talk about "what the Universe is doing". Shit, you need to smoke a joint and think about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 03:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <olecdg$5ni$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #642938 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >The Milky Way could be a CH2 molecule in a reaction in the stomach of a >gut bacterium in some fly. No, it couldn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-02 10:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <olspud$1k3l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #642938 |
On 7/27/17 5:09 PM, john wrote: > Odd > The Milky Way could be a CH2 molecule in a reaction in the stomach of a gut bacterium in some fly. That's kind of iffy, John. What part of the Milky Way would you have correspond to the carbon atom? Which parts the hydrogen atoms? Does the Milky Way have the same shape as methylene? Do you even know the shape of methylene? > And you talk about "what the Universe is doing". > Shit, you need to smoke a joint and think about that. Does it help you remember the shape of methylene? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 05:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4d026ec-41b7-41b3-8aa6-e129c1783e02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642916 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 5:17:23 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM > Describe this "nothingness" that you think we're expanding > into, universally (which is impossible, but whatever Not needed. You just don't seem to understand the concept of an infinite universe. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 05:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4be100d-4b84-49db-9723-22e071bd0e4d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #643095 |
On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 8:09:59 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 5:17:23 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > > MM > > Describe this "nothingness" that you think we're expanding > > into, universally (which is impossible, but whatever > > Not needed. > You just don't seem to understand the concept of an infinite universe. > ed EdJi, at this point you are obligated to explain an infinite universe. Go ahead. -- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!” Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-28 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7f78ec4-5869-47b8-b26d-1b4ed1012409@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642836 |
On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:23:13 AM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > You closed your mind to the stellar shift data. > You closed your mind to the many supporting experiments for relativity > You are stuck in the 1700's world view. Sorry but you are the > modern equivalent of a flat earther. Ed, you are a troll without a substantive argument. All you trolls can do is call people names. You are not a scientist. You are a retired engineer that really doesn't understand that science is a process not a destination. You have no business in a scienitific discussion, you worthless troll. > > > > > So for example in another post you said about the same number > > > of galaxies are approaching us as receding from us. Sorry, but > > > that is proven wrong by the observational evidence. > > > > I said that blueshift was as prominent as redshift, > > and that way yes on the > > whole as many galaxies should be moving away as coming to us. > > And how exactly did you determine the shift? > > > The whole idea behind Hubble was to show the outer limits of the universe, the > > universe being a closed contained thing like Earth. > > That did not happen. > > Hubble showed more galaxies. > > I saw a picture showing red and blue galaxies, relating to whether they were > > coming to us or not. > > They were about the same. > > Now, that picture was absolutely stunning, revolutionary. > > You do know the red shift measurement of motion has nothing > to do with the color of the stars, right? > > > It showed plenty, plenty of galaxies where they were not supposed to be. > > Who said they were not supposed where? > > > It also indicated that had Hubble been more powerful, > > more galaxies would be seen. > > At least out to the Cosmic Microwave Background. There is no cosmic microwave background. Recently it's been realized that the source of those that were detected came from water in the atmosphere. IOW, it is terrestrial! > > > The universe thus is NOT closed, but open, unlimited > > and yes infinite in scope. > > Who said it wasn't? Not me. > > > And to repeat, the galaxies are going off in all > > directions - some coming to us > > and some going away from us. > > And in the process of MEASURING their motion, we found > most are moving AWAY from us. > > > They do not have to be exactly the same of course in any given photo. > > The fact that modern physicists totally ignore blueshift, and talk only of > > redshift, indicates that they are anti-scientific liars, trying to justify > > the big bang theory by ignoring evidence that does not suit them. > > Look at the data. It is shifted red for most cosmic objects. > You can take some time and download stellar and galactic data, > FOR FREE. Take a look if you don't trust the professional > astronomers. Trust is for people that lack the intellect to understand. > > > > > > > Don't be so closed-minded. > > > ed > > > > You don't be close minded, and try to understand then my new physics > > as shown in > [snipped spam] > > I have watched your videos. As I said before, the work is > poorly constructed and lacks experimental rigor. I can say, > they are a good example of a poorly constructed experiment. Go to hell, you pedantic piece of shit. You have nothing to add to the conversation that anybody couldn't look up on wikipedia. You fucking trolls need to realize that everybody has search engines on their computers. Any idiot can sit on Google all day and pretend to be a competent scientist. If you have self-esteem issues go buy a dog. Leave science to scientist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-29 09:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e54473df-f81e-4d4b-8aea-94b752539ff9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642499 |
On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 4:30:34 PM UTC-7, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 6:09:37 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2017 at 12:33:30 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 7/23/17 3:11 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > When the Universe is infinite it cannot expand. > > > > So the Universe cannot be expanding. > > > > > > This is simply not true. What you are demanding in your head is that > > > expansion can only be determined by looking at the motion of an > > > endpoint. But that is an extremely limited imagination. It's very easy > > > to correct that limitation: > [] > > > > > > There is nothing that bends the mind about this, is there? > > > > > > OK, so tomorrow you come back and you notice that the mark "1" is no > > > longer a decimeter from "0", but is instead 1.00167598 decimeters from > > > "0". Likewise, the mark "2" is no longer 2 decimeters from "0" but is > > > now 2.00335196 decimeters from "0". > > > > This does not happen. To think it does is EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKERY. > > And all those who think it does are EINSTEINIAN DUMBFUCKS. > > IOW, you don't understand It's not an understanding, you fucking stupid science groupie. It's an assertion. It may be right and it may be wrong. Do you have anything remotely resembling an argument? If not that go away and stop stinking up this newsgroup with your dumbass, brain-dead confidence that you know what is true or false. > this and therefore resort to > rants and fowl language. It's the only way to get a point across to you fucking retards. > > > Clearly, we have evidence that this infinite wire is expanding. There is > > > no doubt of it. And we made this determination without any observation > > > (or in fact evidence of) an endpoint to the wire. > > > > > > Don't let your mind be trapped by hidden assumptions. > > > > Don't be an Einsteinian dumbfuck. > > Arindam, > you are letting yourself be stuck in 19th century physics. Fucking retard. How do you know it is not you that is trapped? The answer is you don't!!!! Nobody knows. Science doesn't ever harbor absolute beliefs, you fucking stupid asshole. > you can stay back there if you want but physics has learned > a lot more since then. You don't have an argument, you dishonest twerp. Go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 01:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9857c004-f37f-4032-886d-883bbe0fdb7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641917 |
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:03:37 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:06:14 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > > Banjer > > "> Yes, aether should be even finer than electrons. Infinitely fine matter > > > spread throughout the universe going 100% by 19th century vision. All matter > > > including electrons are suffused with aether. Fundamental theory, well > > > explained in physics texts. I have quoted the qualities in my 2005 usenet " > > Yes, electrons are composed of aether, which is simply the atoms at the next Fractal layer below our > > atoms. Everything at our level is. But then those > > atoms also are floating and radiating in still a finer aether. Not infinite. > > Galaxies are 10^22 meters in diameter. > > Atoms are 10^-09 m > > Our Aether particles (atom^-1) are 10^-40m > > > > 10^-40 is pretty fine but not infinite. > > > > There is an aether below that at 10^-71. > > And another below that at 10^-102. > > > > Still not infinite. > > > > Never will be. > > Finite means what is found within the bounds of measurement. Less than some > figure. > Infinite means what is found or conceived beyond the bounds of measurement. > As the universe expands existentially with our telescopic power, the universe > is infinite. > Aether fills the universe, and it can be seen as the building blocks of the > universe. > The relation infinity = constant/zero has this meaning that > for the infinite universe, its basic constituent that is aether has to be > zero. > It is the multiplication of the infinite with zero that provides all the > finite existences that we can measure with our senses. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee ===== how many grams of Aether are there in one cubic mater of space?? ==TIA Y.Porat ============================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 03:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e22ad23-5478-4c7a-bd04-cf75c481c29e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641932 |
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 6:33:02 PM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:03:37 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:06:14 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > > > Banjer > > > "> Yes, aether should be even finer than electrons. Infinitely fine matter > > > > spread throughout the universe going 100% by 19th century vision. All matter > > > > including electrons are suffused with aether. Fundamental theory, well > > > > explained in physics texts. I have quoted the qualities in my 2005 usenet " > > > Yes, electrons are composed of aether, which is simply the atoms at the next Fractal layer below our > > > atoms. Everything at our level is. But then those > > > atoms also are floating and radiating in still a finer aether. Not infinite. > > > Galaxies are 10^22 meters in diameter. > > > Atoms are 10^-09 m > > > Our Aether particles (atom^-1) are 10^-40m > > > > > > 10^-40 is pretty fine but not infinite. > > > > > > There is an aether below that at 10^-71. > > > And another below that at 10^-102. > > > > > > Still not infinite. > > > > > > Never will be. > > > > Finite means what is found within the bounds of measurement. Less than some > > figure. > > Infinite means what is found or conceived beyond the bounds of measurement. > > As the universe expands existentially with our telescopic power, the universe > > is infinite. > > Aether fills the universe, and it can be seen as the building blocks of the > > universe. > > The relation infinity = constant/zero has this meaning that > > for the infinite universe, its basic constituent that is aether has to be > > zero. > > It is the multiplication of the infinite with zero that provides all the > > finite existences that we can measure with our senses. > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > ===== > how many grams of Aether > are there in one cubic mater of space?? > ==TIA > Y.Porat > ============================ There is no way to measure the mass of aether for aether fills everything. Just as there is no way to measure what is the speed of anything in aether. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 06:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a991ba86-3def-4002-a69b-88ad5509be46@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641941 |
Ari "There is no way to measure the mass of aether for aether fills.." There are many layers of aether. Exactly half the energy of a body is in ALL those layers and the other half is in the body itself. It's a potential- kinetic thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <97861b1c-8313-4a24-84ed-088cfcc39fec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #641960 |
On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:41:29 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > Ari > "There is no way to measure the mass of aether for aether fills.." > There are many layers of aether. A conjecture or do you have any proof? > Exactly half the energy of a body is in ALL > those layers and the other half is in the body > itself. Should physicists think primarily in terms of energy? Force should be the main concern of physicists. Energy is about making money. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > It's a potential- kinetic thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f357ee70-e6b9-473b-ab7d-5350af962ae3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642025 |
Arindam "A conjecture or do you have any proof? " I have a hypothesis that galaxies are atoms and atoms are galaxies. I try to make sense of things thru this lense. Galactic rotation curves from opposite sides of the disc are routinely asymmetrical and must be averaged to yield the GRC that is derived. Why? Because galaxies are precessing. One side is going away from the observer and one towards, which skews the measurements. Why must galaxies precess? To sweep out their SPHERE of influence which lies within a double-layered spherical halo of old globular clusters. Why are the inner and outer layers travelling different directions? Because each time the disk precesses through, the edge is going the other way See: http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-23 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2f1acda-7b36-4a3e-a3e1-349430728524@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642053 |
On Monday, July 24, 2017 at 10:12:42 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > Arindam > "A conjecture or do you have any proof? " > I have a hypothesis that galaxies are atoms and atoms are galaxies. A matter of semantics. Rose by any other name, what. > I try to make sense of things thru this lense. > > Galactic rotation curves from opposite sides of the disc are routinely asymmetrical and must be averaged to yield the GRC that is derived. Why? I don't know how accurate the data is. We do not know nor can know how much matter is there in any galaxy. For there is a lot of matter that is dark meaning that it does not shine as as star as it is not big enough. We cannot know where this dark matter is, how much it impacts, etc. So when we have no hard data we cannot make grand and sweeping theories that have any practical importance. The world has suffered much from the relativity and quantum nonsenses. No doubt their practitioners have benefited but that situation may not be repeated in the future. Hard science based upon real data, that is beyond controversy, should be the basis for rational discussion. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee Because galaxies are precessing. One side is going away from the observer and one towards, which skews the measurements. Why must galaxies precess? > To sweep out their SPHERE of influence which lies within a double-layered spherical halo of old globular clusters. Why are the inner and outer layers travelling different directions? Because each time the disk precesses through, the edge is going the other way > See: > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-24 03:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c2c4352-8886-403e-ac9f-e9c9cd0328b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #642053 |
Poor John says Galactic rotation curves from opposite sides of the disc are routinely asymmetrical and must be averaged to yield the GRC that is derived. Why? Because galaxies are precessing. One side is going away from the observer and one towards, which skews the measurements. To sweep out their SPHERE of influence which lies within a double-layered spherical halo of old globular clusters. Why are the inner and outer layers travelling different directions? ----------- This is what happens when you proceed from a false premise. (Pharma helps too) John, spiral galaxies rotate. When we observe their spectrum sometimes we see a blue shift on one side and a red shift on the other. This is due to that galaxy's rotation. But I mean this is high school level stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web