Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #644100 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-02 16:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-19 21:51 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 16:00 -0700
Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 18:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Mushnik <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-02 20:46 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:14 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 00:20 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-03 12:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 15:18 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-03 23:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 02:38 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 07:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 19:58 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 04:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 18:08 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 21:14 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 19:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:08 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 05:50 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:39 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 03:44 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Serg Io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 10:17 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 19:34 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-04 21:44 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 20:00 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 22:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-04 23:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 00:53 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 01:13 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:58 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:17 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:53 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 05:17 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:57 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 08:57 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:23 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:24 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-07 14:14 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:25 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-08 22:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:07 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:56 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 15:57 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 20:17 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 08:40 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:25 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 16:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 02:13 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 19:25 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 11:20 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 04:32 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 07:47 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 19:34 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 17:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-08 13:15 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 06:39 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:20 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:03 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 12:03 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:39 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 14:43 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 16:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 03:17 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 23:52 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 17:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 17:47 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 22:22 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:34 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 20:52 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 20:49 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 01:34 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 11:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:31 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 19:14 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 19:11 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-05 23:37 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 16:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 17:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 17:36 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 23:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 13:19 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:03 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:09 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 02:36 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:35 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 18:13 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:40 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 11:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-05 23:16 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 16:32 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-06 04:18 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 02:49 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:28 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-05 23:04 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 19:59 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 18:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 22:13 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 21:39 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:23 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-08 12:19 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-06 04:32 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 21:09 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "Eduardo Fahqtardo" <Dave3@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 18:46 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-04 21:57 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 06:21 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-04 23:03 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 19:15 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 14:35 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 04:28 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 22:13 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 06:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-08-05 23:22 +1000
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-05 21:00 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 06:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 09:02 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:25 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 23:03 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 13:19 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:29 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 17:06 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 07:51 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 16:49 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 15:52 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 00:00 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 02:36 +0000
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 20:21 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:47 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:21 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> - 2017-08-05 08:54 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 22:38 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 08:13 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 17:00 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-06 20:55 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 23:37 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 08:30 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:44 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 08:31 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 07:29 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-07 10:59 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-07 13:23 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-07 17:27 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-08 12:39 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-05 21:12 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 18:10 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-04 10:06 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-04 13:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:21 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:44 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-04 14:31 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-04 18:16 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:24 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 16:19 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:20 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:43 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-05 10:14 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-05 15:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-06 19:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 17:16 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 21:05 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 20:01 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 23:38 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 21:52 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 22:15 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 02:29 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 17:29 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 15:45 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 19:13 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:55 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 20:09 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 18:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-11 18:04 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 21:26 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-16 16:39 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 21:25 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 02:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 02:49 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:20 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 06:58 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:19 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 07:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-10 22:39 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 20:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-11 18:15 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-16 17:56 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 16:50 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-16 21:41 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:05 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:34 -0500
Re: Waves need a medium Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 15:59 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 09:43 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 18:45 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 19:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:27 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-17 12:40 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:57 -0400
Re: Waves need a medium raymond.yohros@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 13:51 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-17 20:57 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 12:08 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 14:12 -0700
Re: Waves need a medium benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-19 21:51 -0400
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 23:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om5jl2$vb8$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #644600 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"e that. >> Structure is still required for objects. > Prove that. " >This guy wants me to prove that >his imaginary friend is not real. >:) >He's real if you believe he is, Odd. Completely different. You cannot prove a negative. I cannot prove that dragons don't exist, nor can I prove that your imaginary friend doesn't exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so you can (and should) do it, if true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 16:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0996382c-a03e-4da4-8716-ddf4a9ef0d72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644661 |
MM "exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so you can (and should) do it, if true. " If everything we've seen is structured, then it would seem that it is the no-structure case that needs proving. And your only proof is.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om60ur$1rdt$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644663 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > "exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so > you can (and should) do it, if true. " > If everything we've seen is structured, then it would seem that it is the > no-structure case that needs proving. > And your only proof is..... > You know it's interesting but a while back you stepped away from the "everything is just like our previous experience" argument, saying it didn't hold water. Especially since you're the one proposing flat atoms that have never been seen before. Instead, you said that "everything has structure" comes from pure logic, though when pressed you couldn't form that argument either. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 04:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om65at$ok4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #644663 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"exist. Proving that structure is necessary isn't proving a negative, so >you can (and should) do it, if true. " >If everything we've seen is structured, But we've seen (or rather observed) electrons, neutrinos etc. So your "if" is false. However,.... >If everything we've seen is structured, then it would seem that it is >the no-structure case that needs proving. The Appeal to Probability and the Onus Probandi fallacies here. That's not how logic works. *PROVE* matter needs to be structured, don't simply repeat that the macroscopic matter you've seen is structured. Remember, we're not discussing the macroscopic world here, things are different when h becomes significant. Anyway, it's your claim. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies or questions the claim. (a.k.a. the Onus Probandi fallacy here. Also known as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 02:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om604b$1q2t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644600 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "e that. > >> Structure is still required for objects. > > Prove that. " > > This guy wants me to prove that > his imaginary friend is not real. You made a statement that is your own, not mine. Your statement is that zero size is IMPOSSIBLE. Prove it. Your statement is that structure is REQUIRED for objects. Prove it. > :) > He's real if you believe he is, Odd. > Remember to take your pills. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 08:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om9ptc$1qa$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644712 |
On 8/5/17 9:49 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> Odd >> "e that. >> >>> Structure is still required for objects. >> >> Prove that. " >> >> This guy wants me to prove that >> his imaginary friend is not real. > > You made a statement that is your own, not mine. > Your statement is that zero size is IMPOSSIBLE. Prove it. > Your statement is that structure is REQUIRED for objects. Prove it. Suddenly John goes eerily quiet. It's like he has rummaged around in the closet of his mind and found nothing. > >> :) >> He's real if you believe he is, Odd. >> Remember to take your pills. >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om5it5$vb8$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #644597 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Math is still not reality. But math in physics describes reality. >Zero volume is still impossible. Why do you claim this? >Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small'). Why do you claim this? >Structure is still required for objects. Why do you claim this?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 19:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om5pnj$1frh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644657 |
On 8/5/2017 6:04 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Math is still not reality. > > But math in physics describes reality. > >> Zero volume is still impossible. > > Why do you claim this? > >> Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small'). > > Why do you claim this? > >> Structure is still required for objects. > > Why do you claim this? > all valid questions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 18:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f69cfcc5-30b6-4c07-9767-cb9bc7b7e6ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644679 |
MaryK "all valid questions. " I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated. Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume, has size, has structure. The only things in question are those too small to tell, as of yet. Attophysics will change this. People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they weren't visible. Stuck in the mud. Are you stuck in the mud, MaryK?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 22:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59867b56$0$63800$c3e8da3$38634283@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #644692 |
On 8/5/2017 9:12 PM, john wrote: > MaryK > "all valid questions." > I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated. > Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume, has size, has structure. The only things in question are those too small to tell, as of yet. Attophysics will change this. > > People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they weren't visible. Stuck in the mud. Are you stuck in the mud, MaryK? > So exactly at what scale does structure disappear? Mary's idea is that if something is too small to see then you can make up whatever fantasy you wish about it and it will remain correct until someone can prove you wrong. Good enough for her. Logic and reason do not enter in to it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | MaryK <nobody@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 21:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om5vi0$1p8b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644708 |
On 8/5/2017 9:13 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/5/2017 9:12 PM, john wrote: >> MaryK >> "all valid questions." >> I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated. >> Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume, >> has size, has structure. The only things in question are those too >> small to tell, as of yet. Attophysics will change this. >> >> People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they >> weren't visible. Stuck in the mud. Are you stuck in the mud, MaryK? >> > So exactly at what scale does structure disappear? Mary's idea is that > if something is too small to see then you can make up whatever fantasy > you wish about it and it will remain correct until someone can prove you > wrong. Good enough for her. Logic and reason do not enter in to it. > true, no volume and no size is possable, you cant see it, but you could hold it, lots of it. But dont drop it, you will never find it. whatever it is. IF you have something in a volume and remove it, then that volume is not taken up anymore, it is zero. must have 0, like when the arabs had a numbering system without 0, then ended up having to add 0 to it. we do need nothing. structure and objects an object is something someone can see. what kind of 'structure' does mud have ? or Air ? anyhow, seems we are discussing context of word usage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 17:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5988da6c$0$13182$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #644710 |
On 8/5/2017 10:39 PM, MaryK wrote: > On 8/5/2017 9:13 PM, benj wrote: >> On 8/5/2017 9:12 PM, john wrote: >>> MaryK >>> "all valid questions." >>> I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated. >>> Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume, >>> has size, has structure. The only things in question are those too >>> small to tell, as of yet. Attophysics will change this. >>> >>> People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they >>> weren't visible. Stuck in the mud. Are you stuck in the mud, MaryK? >>> >> So exactly at what scale does structure disappear? Mary's idea is that >> if something is too small to see then you can make up whatever fantasy >> you wish about it and it will remain correct until someone can prove >> you wrong. Good enough for her. Logic and reason do not enter in to it. >> > > true, no volume and no size is possable, you cant see it, but you could > hold it, lots of it. But dont drop it, you will never find it. whatever > it is. IF you have something in a volume and remove it, then that > volume is not taken up anymore, it is zero. > > must have 0, like when the arabs had a numbering system without 0, then > ended up having to add 0 to it. we do need nothing. > > > structure and objects > > an object is something someone can see. what kind of 'structure' does > mud have ? or Air ? > > anyhow, seems we are discussing context of word usage > > Why do you think "seeing" something is related to it having structure? Sure nothing at all has no structure (no matter what physics textbooks have taught you), but even if we "see" a material object Like a block of metal we are not truly "seeing" it's structure. It is in reality mostly empty space. We infer that from it's properties. Indeed what makes something actually exist is the fact it has properties. The vacuum of space seems as if it is "nothing at all", but the fact that empty space has properties proves it is "something" and has structure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 12:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omcrqk$15c8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645019 |
On 8/7/2017 4:23 PM, benj wrote:
> On 8/5/2017 10:39 PM, MaryK wrote:
>> On 8/5/2017 9:13 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 8/5/2017 9:12 PM, john wrote:
>>>> MaryK
>>>> "all valid questions."
>>>> I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated.
>>>> Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has
>>>> volume, has size, has structure. The only things in question are
>>>> those too small to tell, as of yet. Attophysics will change this.
>>>>
>>>> People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they
>>>> weren't visible. Stuck in the mud. Are you stuck in the mud, MaryK?
>>>>
>>> So exactly at what scale does structure disappear? Mary's idea is
>>> that if something is too small to see then you can make up whatever
>>> fantasy you wish about it and it will remain correct until someone
>>> can prove you wrong. Good enough for her. Logic and reason do not
>>> enter in to it.
>>>
>>
>> true, no volume and no size is possable, you cant see it, but you
>> could hold it, lots of it. But dont drop it, you will never find it.
>> whatever it is. IF you have something in a volume and remove it,
>> then that volume is not taken up anymore, it is zero.
>>
>> must have 0, like when the arabs had a numbering system without 0,
>> then ended up having to add 0 to it. we do need nothing.
>>
>>
>> structure and objects
>>
>> an object is something someone can see. what kind of 'structure' does
>> mud have ? or Air ?
>>
>> anyhow, seems we are discussing context of word usage
>>
>>
> Why do you think "seeing" something is related to it having structure?
> Sure nothing at all has no structure (no matter what physics textbooks
> have taught you),
"structure" is interpretative, many meanings, and different at different
scales, nm vs meters
> but even if we "see" a material object Like a block of
> metal we are not truly "seeing" it's structure. It is in reality mostly
> empty space. We infer that from it's properties. Indeed what makes
> something actually exist is the fact it has properties. The vacuum of
> space seems as if it is "nothing at all", but the fact that empty space
> has properties proves it is "something" and has structure.
structure is different from a property,
my 2 cents
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 04:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om664b$ok4$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #644692 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MaryK >"all valid questions. " >I claim this because no such things have ever been demonstrated. The Appeal to Probability fallacy again. >Everything large enough for us to comprehensively examine has volume, >has size, has structure. Well duh! Everything big enough is too big to have a zero size! What an amazing piece of logic that is!! We're not discussing big things here, but small things. > The only things in question are those too small >to tell, as of yet. We've already been told a lot. > Attophysics will change this. Keep dreaming! >People didn't believe there were bacteria, either, because they weren't >visible. Yes, you are just like those people. Can't imagine the concept of pointlike things because you have never seen a pointlike thing before. Stuck in the mud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 21:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <94d59358-10e6-4162-8822-33a1892b534a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644567 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 7:41:39 PM UTC+3, Odd mathematical relationship, the presence of the medium would mean nothing. > > What's even more astounding is that once you know that the wave behavior > comes from Newton's law and the relationship between the derivatives, > then this behavior will emerge EVEN WITHOUT a medium to support it. It's > not hard to find cases where the relationship between the derivatives is > present with no medium to point to. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables ======================== thank you BODKIN !!however why do you speak too long to make a point ? you are not before students in a class to fill our obligations to 'fill an hour of teaching '' we have to invest in more useful issues !! anyway thank again Y.Porat =======================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Eduardo Fahqtardo" <Dave3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 18:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <om8gq1$1v3u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644724 |
>======================== >thank you BODKIN !!however why do you speak too long to make a point ? >you are not before students in a class to fill our obligations to >'fill an hour of teaching '' >we have to invest in more useful issues !! >anyway >thank again >Y.Porat >======================= Adios, dick-nose
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 21:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <euj5q3FbdgiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #644100 |
On 3/08/2017 9:00 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 1:23:52 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/1/17 7:17 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> Waves need a medium. >> >> No, they do not. Waves need only a system where the relevant laws are in >> the form of the wave equation, period, end of story. No medium is required. > > Only if the abstract is real, which suits the frauds but not engineers. > >> Somewhere in your education, you got the misinformation that waves >> require a medium. Where? > > From water waves requiring water > From sound waves requiring air/solid > From Mexican waves requiring humans > From vibration waves requiring a string > > Since these waves require a medium, electromagnetic waves need a medium. > Because it is the medium which must support and pass on the disturbance. > > The presence of electromagnetic waves can be physically seen when one does > VSWR measurements using a slotted coaxial line, and microwave generator and a > VSWR meter. > > While testing antenna and other microwave equipment from 1977 to 1987 I used > the above apparatus. > > Evidently waves exist and as waves cannot exist without a medium there has to > be a medium and that medium we call aether. > > It is quite another thing to neglect the medium for practical purposes. > But to say that a wave exists but there is no medium to propagate it, is > preposterous. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > Quantum mechanics predicts the wave-like properties of light very well, but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in the mathematics. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 06:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10e291be-9f80-41ac-b575-2815305f3975@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644349 |
Silly "but describes light in terms of particles. The waves themselves are in the mathematics. " Thd trouble is that reality is not math. You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om2ug7$gb7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #644355 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it The math shows stuff like structure (if any) and so forth. That's part of its job. For example, y = ±sqrt(1-x²) describes a circle as well as a drawing of a circle, and is more accurate since you know it's a circle mathematically, not any sort of "almost circle".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-04 19:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5985000d$0$43728$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #644430 |
On 8/4/2017 7:03 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Thd trouble is that reality is not math. >> You have to demonstrate the 3D structure that does it > > The math shows stuff like structure (if any) and so forth. > That's part of its job. > > For example, y = ±sqrt(1-x²) describes a circle as well as a drawing of a > circle, and is more accurate since you know it's a circle mathematically, > not any sort of "almost circle". > You miss the point. The mathematical circle is a fantasy. It simply does not exist. y = ±sqrt(1-x²) doesn't "describe" a mathematical circle, it DEFINES it! When you see that equation there are no drawings, no objects, no lines in space. There is only tinkerbell fantasy in someone's mind. And you KNOW it's a circle, not because when you loo at it it's round or or equidistant from a point or whatever. There is NOTHING to look at! You KNOW it's a circle because in math the word circle is defined by the equation and all it represents. Nothing real can ever be a circle because it's never going to b e perfect and hence perfectly represent that equation which is a definition. Hence the word "circle" means something different for real circular objects than it does for mathematical one. OK?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web