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 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 11:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <decb3f83-e3c9-4865-8cc3-ae5df6922624@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645211 |
On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:24:47 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:15:39 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > > > >Now if e=mcc as per all Eisnteinian > > >then the mass of the photon HAS to be > > >hv/c^2 > > > > WRONG. > > No, it is right if anyone can be right going by E=mcc nonsense! > But, even in nonsense, there has to be some sense for some credibility. > > > > >Simple derivation, based upon the logic of modern physics. > > >Wrong of course. > > > > It is you who is wrong, because you used the formula incorrectly. > > The REAL mass-energy formula is E=sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2). > > m = the rest mass and p is the momentum. > > That is for the particle. > m is rest mass for the particle. > When it moves with some momentum p then yes as per e=mcc nonsense that is > the formula. > > But I am talking about a photon here. > Which is a particle moving at the speed of light as per quantum mechanics > and relativity. > So there can be no rest mass for a photon. > To pretend that a photon has a rest mass is incredible and all surpassing > nonsense. > A photon has the energy hv and as it moves at the speed of light as a > particle it has a mass equivalent given by hv/c^2. > > In brief, as the photon moves at the speed of light it cannot have any rest mass. > Seen as a particle, its mass has to be hv/c^2. > This is the energy it imparts to whatever it strikes as a particle. > > Of course, all the above is nonsense for light is a wave motion carried by > the medium of aether. > > In due course, physics will be purified from the ill effects of the e=mcc rabies. > > Continuing my efforts to bring that happy day nearer, and with best wishes to > all including the rabid ones, > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > > > For a massive particle at rest or moving relatively slowly, the pc term > > is small compared to the mc^2 portion so the formula simplifies to > > E=sqrt(m^2c^4) which simplifies to the familiar E=mc^2. > > Remember, E=mc^2 is a SPECIAL CASE. > > > > For a photon with zero rest mass, the mc^2/m^2c^4 term becomes zero so now > > the formula is E=sqrt(p^2c^2). whic simplifies to E=pc. > > A different special case. > > > > At no point are the two energy components equated. Instead, their squares > > are added. ========================== imbecile parrot the photon has mass the only mass in E photon - hf dimension analysis shows that it has mass the only mass no f en relativistic coefficient yet how come an imbecile presumptuous moron like you that is a AETHER ENGINEER TO TEACH US PHYSICS !! go teach physics in Pakistan not here ------ Y.Porat ================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-09 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d2e8691-7dcd-4bc4-930a-ffd82382449e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645310 |
On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 4:55:10 AM UTC+10, pora...@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, August 9, 2017 at 2:24:47 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 11:15:39 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > >Now if e=mcc as per all Eisnteinian > > > >then the mass of the photon HAS to be > > > >hv/c^2 > > > > > > WRONG. > > > > No, it is right if anyone can be right going by E=mcc nonsense! > > But, even in nonsense, there has to be some sense for some credibility. > > > > > > >Simple derivation, based upon the logic of modern physics. > > > >Wrong of course. > > > > > > It is you who is wrong, because you used the formula incorrectly. > > > The REAL mass-energy formula is E=sqrt((mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2). > > > m = the rest mass and p is the momentum. > > > > That is for the particle. > > m is rest mass for the particle. > > When it moves with some momentum p then yes as per e=mcc nonsense that is > > the formula. > > > > But I am talking about a photon here. > > Which is a particle moving at the speed of light as per quantum mechanics > > and relativity. > > So there can be no rest mass for a photon. > > To pretend that a photon has a rest mass is incredible and all surpassing > > nonsense. > > A photon has the energy hv and as it moves at the speed of light as a > > particle it has a mass equivalent given by hv/c^2. > > > > In brief, as the photon moves at the speed of light it cannot have any rest mass. > > Seen as a particle, its mass has to be hv/c^2. > > This is the energy it imparts to whatever it strikes as a particle. > > > > Of course, all the above is nonsense for light is a wave motion carried by > > the medium of aether. > > > > In due course, physics will be purified from the ill effects of the e=mcc rabies. > > > > Continuing my efforts to bring that happy day nearer, and with best wishes to > > all including the rabid ones, > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > > For a massive particle at rest or moving relatively slowly, the pc term > > > is small compared to the mc^2 portion so the formula simplifies to > > > E=sqrt(m^2c^4) which simplifies to the familiar E=mc^2. > > > Remember, E=mc^2 is a SPECIAL CASE. > > > > > > For a photon with zero rest mass, the mc^2/m^2c^4 term becomes zero so now > > > the formula is E=sqrt(p^2c^2). whic simplifies to E=pc. > > > A different special case. > > > > > > At no point are the two energy components equated. Instead, their squares > > > are added. > ========================== > imbecile parrot > the photon has mass the only mass > in E photon - hf > dimension analysis shows that it has mass > the only mass > no f en relativistic coefficient > yet > how come an imbecile presumptuous moron like you > that is a AETHER ENGINEER > TO TEACH US PHYSICS !! > go teach physics in Pakistan not here Go to Pakistan and LEARN physics there. They have made a perpetual motion machine. Thus they have proved my formula that shows how energy is always getting created and destroyed, namely e=0.5mVVN(N-k) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0IbppxPdHc&t=12s And their command over English is far better than yours. Learn, learn. Those you despise are scientifically far superior to you. > ------ > Y.Porat > ================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 19:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <598a45d1$0$53469$c3e8da3$b1356c67@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #645081 |
On 8/7/2017 10:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 12:13:09 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:25:54 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/6/17 12:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> Modern physicists hold that em radiation is matter following >>>>> e(v)=hv where v is frequency and h is Planck's constant and e is the energy >>>>> of the photon >>>>> and m=e(v)/c^2 where m is the mass of the photon following Einstein's relation. >>>> >>>> Modern physicists do NOT hold that the mass of the photon is m=e(v)/c^2. >>>> I have no idea where you got such a stupid idea. >>> >>> It is far from stupid if you hold that >>> e=mcc >>> and e=hV (energy of a photon) >>> If you hold these two correct then a photon MUST have mass m = hv/C^2 >>> which will be evident to anyone with the slightest knowledge of algebra. >>> >>> Of course as e=mcc is false this equation for photon mass m=hv/c^2 is wrong. >>> >>> Modern physicists are all mad as they support e=mcc. >>> They are all as distorted as spacetime. >>> AS they support GR they MUST associate light/photon with mass. >>> They did that to "prove" GR. >>> They are wrong of course. >>> Their schizophrenic attitude has caused havoc to many aspects of life in the >>> 20th century. It has corrupted everything. >>> Getting rid of their dogma is thus the way to go in this century. >>> Down e=mcc; up e=0.5mVVN(N-k) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> That's just it, Arindam. >> The e in e=mc^2 is not the same energy that is in e=h*nu. >> If you would actually READ the references where these are discussed, you >> would know that the same label "e" is being used for two completely >> different quantities. And had you done that, then you wouldn't make the >> foolish mistake of equating them. > > Both are energy e. > e is the energy of a photon. And that energy is hv. > Any book on quantum theory will tell you that. > > The photon is treated as a particle with kinetic energy as particles must have. > > There is no aether in quantum theory/relativity as per Einstein in 1905 and > this is blindly swallowed and regurgitated by the modern physicists. > > The photon is a particle travelling at the speed of light according to them. > > It may have wave like qualities to account for refraction, diffraction, > beam-forming, etc. and that follows from de Broglie's HYPOTHESIS. > > Now if e=mcc as per all Eisnteinian > then the mass of the photon HAS to be > hv/c^2 > > Simple derivation, based upon the logic of modern physics. > Wrong of course. > But that is another story which is what I am writing in my Aphorisms. > > Sooner or later the e=mcc nonsense will be clear to all. > > And how its adherents use confusion, abuse, ad hom attacks to maintain their > crumbling position. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee You are right, Banjo. Only a genius of your level could see the sense in classical physics and the nonsense of E = mcc. I sure hope they don't steal your ideas and get famous while everyone just continues to laugh at you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 19:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <598a4517$0$62091$b1db1813$7968482@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #645080 |
On 8/7/2017 10:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 11:25:54 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/6/17 12:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> Modern physicists hold that em radiation is matter following >>>> e(v)=hv where v is frequency and h is Planck's constant and e is the energy >>>> of the photon >>>> and m=e(v)/c^2 where m is the mass of the photon following Einstein's relation. >>> >>> Modern physicists do NOT hold that the mass of the photon is m=e(v)/c^2. >>> I have no idea where you got such a stupid idea. >> >> It is far from stupid if you hold that >> e=mcc >> and e=hV (energy of a photon) >> If you hold these two correct then a photon MUST have mass m = hv/C^2 >> which will be evident to anyone with the slightest knowledge of algebra. >> >> Of course as e=mcc is false this equation for photon mass m=hv/c^2 is wrong. >> >> Modern physicists are all mad as they support e=mcc. >> They are all as distorted as spacetime. >> AS they support GR they MUST associate light/photon with mass. >> They did that to "prove" GR. >> They are wrong of course. >> Their schizophrenic attitude has caused havoc to many aspects of life in the >> 20th century. It has corrupted everything. >> Getting rid of their dogma is thus the way to go in this century. >> Down e=mcc; up e=0.5mVVN(N-k) >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> > > That's just it, Arindam. > The e in e=mc^2 is not the same energy that is in e=h*nu. > If you would actually READ the references where these are discussed, you > would know that the same label "e" is being used for two completely > different quantities. And had you done that, then you wouldn't make the > foolish mistake of equating them. > > The mistake is yours, and it's a silly one born of ignorance. > It is not "far from stupid" but very very NEAR to stupid. to beleive that e=mc^2 and e=h*nu are nonsense. Finally Odd, someone actually dumb enough that a maker of wooden toys can actually feel smart and knowledgeable of science. I'd have never thought it possible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om5kqs$vb8$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #644454 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote: >> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> >> 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. >> > >> > From cats giving live birth to kittens >> > From cows giving live birth to calves >> > From Mexicans giving live birth to babies >> > From dogs giving live birth to puppies >> > >> > Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to >> > give live birth to their offspring. >Like sharks! I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it off. Thanks for proving me right! >A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. Does not follow. Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike property they have. >Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't propagate in a vacuum? >How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with >infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot >understand. With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing. No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless. Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that. >A wave is a disturbance. >Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves. >I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the whole universe must be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <266cb0fb-e36c-4e80-8560-2ac914016ce6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644666 |
MM " Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, .." Now ur starting to get it, Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c478c367-9a87-48ec-a887-b122e1649b74@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644666 |
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 7:37:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote: > >> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> > From cats giving live birth to kittens > >> > From cows giving live birth to calves > >> > From Mexicans giving live birth to babies > >> > From dogs giving live birth to puppies > >> > > >> > Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to > >> > give live birth to their offspring. > > >Like sharks! > > I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it > off. Thanks for proving me right! > > >A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. > > Does not follow. > > Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and > particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike > property they have. > > >Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. > > Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't > propagate in a vacuum? > > >How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with > >infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot > >understand. > > With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing. > No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless. > > Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its > velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named > Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that. > > >A wave is a disturbance. > >Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. > > Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves. > > >I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. > > No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John > Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must > be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the > whole universe must be wrong. That's so brilliantly funny, MichaelJi! Wish I'd written that! Wrong Universe?! -- 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 | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 17:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <35d7c089-1b09-40cc-a6ab-e71aa80a3d3b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644670 |
Waves do need a medium. That is what is waving. However, there are also High Energy Particles that travel up to .9c, as well, that are referred to as Cosmic Waves, or Cosmic Rays. These are shot out from Black Holes as jets when Matter falls in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 03:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om60us$1rdt$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644676 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Waves do need a medium. Nope > That is what is waving. Not in the case of fields. Not unless you want to call the fields the medium. > However, there are also High Energy Particles > that travel up to .9c, as well, that are referred to as Cosmic Waves, or > Cosmic Rays. These are shot out from Black Holes as jets when Matter falls in. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 23:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <093db9ad-30df-43d2-903d-3b1206c4a634@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644666 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:37:03 AM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote: > >> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> > On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> > From cats giving live birth to kittens > >> > From cows giving live birth to calves > >> > From Mexicans giving live birth to babies > >> > From dogs giving live birth to puppies > >> > > >> > Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to > >> > give live birth to their offspring. > > >Like sharks! > > I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it > off. Thanks for proving me right! I was disappointed with the low quality of implied criticism which confused matters instead of clarifying them. > > >A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. > > Does not follow. > > Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and > particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike > property they have. Photons are not particles. They are the basic element of electromagnetic radiation. Photons are not particles as they do not have mass. No one has PROVED that photons have mass. Electrons have mass and so they are particles. Electrons can go off into empty space with no need for aether. Such is NOT the case for photons. > > >Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. > > Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't > propagate in a vacuum? It will for it is not a disturbance. It is a mass with a velocity. On the other hand sound will not fly through a vacuum. > >How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with > >infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot > >understand. > > With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing. > No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless. > > Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its > velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named > Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that. > > >A wave is a disturbance. > >Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. > > Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves. > > >I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. > > No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John > Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must > be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the > whole universe must be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om751u$1rpm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644747 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:37:03 AM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote: >>>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> From cats giving live birth to kittens >>>>> From cows giving live birth to calves >>>>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies >>>>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies >>>>> >>>>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to >>>>> give live birth to their offspring. >> >>> Like sharks! >> >> I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it >> off. Thanks for proving me right! > > I was disappointed with the low quality of implied criticism which confused > matters instead of clarifying them. >> >>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. >> >> Does not follow. >> >> Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and >> particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike >> property they have. > > Photons are not particles. They are the basic element of electromagnetic > radiation. Photons are not particles as they do not have mass. Photons do not have mass. Physicists say photons have no mass. You are the one incorrectly using an equation m=e/c^2 to say that photons are supposed by physicists to have mass. But you are the one using the equation incorrectly to make a false claim. To repeat: no physicist today will say that photons have mass. So what is your complaint about physics?? > > No one has PROVED that photons have mass. > > Electrons have mass and so they are particles. > > Electrons can go off into empty space with no need for aether. > > Such is NOT the case for photons. > >> >>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. >> >> Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't >> propagate in a vacuum? > > It will for it is not a disturbance. It is a mass with a velocity. > On the other hand sound will not fly through a vacuum. > >>> How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with >>> infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot >>> understand. >> >> With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing. >> No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless. >> >> Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its >> velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named >> Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that. >> >>> A wave is a disturbance. >>> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. >> >> Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves. >> >>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. >> >> No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John >> Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must >> be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the >> whole universe must be wrong. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 17:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c62aa1fe-640a-4c9e-9f1c-cf31c9e8376c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644794 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:20:03 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:37:03 AM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote: > >>>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> From cats giving live birth to kittens > >>>>> From cows giving live birth to calves > >>>>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies > >>>>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies > >>>>> > >>>>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to > >>>>> give live birth to their offspring. > >> > >>> Like sharks! > >> > >> I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it > >> off. Thanks for proving me right! > > > > I was disappointed with the low quality of implied criticism which confused > > matters instead of clarifying them. > >> > >>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. > >> > >> Does not follow. > >> > >> Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and > >> particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike > >> property they have. > > > > Photons are not particles. They are the basic element of electromagnetic > > radiation. Photons are not particles as they do not have mass. > > Photons do not have mass. Physicists say photons have no mass. > You are the one incorrectly using an equation m=e/c^2 to say that photons > are supposed by physicists to have mass. But you are the one using the > equation incorrectly to make a false claim. It is Porat who says that em waves have mass. Physicists (modern) are schizophrenic about light. They are mad. I do not apply their madness to light. Nor do I absorb their madness. I dismiss them as despicable and contemptible frauds if they claim sanity. > > To repeat: no physicist today will say that photons have mass. So what is > your complaint about physics?? I don't complain about physics. > > > > > No one has PROVED that photons have mass. > > > > Electrons have mass and so they are particles. > > > > Electrons can go off into empty space with no need for aether. > > > > Such is NOT the case for photons. > > > >> > >>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. > >> > >> Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't > >> propagate in a vacuum? > > > > It will for it is not a disturbance. It is a mass with a velocity. > > On the other hand sound will not fly through a vacuum. > > > >>> How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with > >>> infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot > >>> understand. > >> > >> With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing. > >> No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless. > >> > >> Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its > >> velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named > >> Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that. > >> > >>> A wave is a disturbance. > >>> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. > >> > >> Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves. > >> > >>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. > >> > >> No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John > >> Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must > >> be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the > >> whole universe must be wrong. > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0940d324-ca40-45d6-baee-241e85c6771f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644859 |
Odd has a short-circuit somewhere. Only explanation I can think of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om8jnn$3ij$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644859 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 11:20:03 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 9:37:03 AM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 1:18:14 AM UTC+10, Serg Io wrote: >>>>>> On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From cats giving live birth to kittens >>>>>>> From cows giving live birth to calves >>>>>>> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies >>>>>>> From dogs giving live birth to puppies >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to >>>>>>> give live birth to their offspring. >>>> >>>>> Like sharks! >>>> >>>> I knew you would either ignore the comparison or not get it and blow it >>>> off. Thanks for proving me right! >>> >>> I was disappointed with the low quality of implied criticism which confused >>> matters instead of clarifying them. >>>> >>>>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. >>>> >>>> Does not follow. >>>> >>>> Besides, things like photons, electrons etc. have both wavelike and >>>> particlelike properties. Not needing a medium is simply a particlelike >>>> property they have. >>> >>> Photons are not particles. They are the basic element of electromagnetic >>> radiation. Photons are not particles as they do not have mass. >> >> Photons do not have mass. Physicists say photons have no mass. >> You are the one incorrectly using an equation m=e/c^2 to say that photons >> are supposed by physicists to have mass. But you are the one using the >> equation incorrectly to make a false claim. > > It is Porat who says that em waves have mass. And Ports is a bridge engineer. Why is his thought on the subject important? > Physicists (modern) are schizophrenic about light. In what way? > They are mad. > I do not apply their madness to light. > Nor do I absorb their madness. > I dismiss them as despicable and contemptible frauds if they claim sanity. > >> >> To repeat: no physicist today will say that photons have mass. So what is >> your complaint about physics?? > > I don't complain about physics. You just said the were madmen. Confused? > >> >>> >>> No one has PROVED that photons have mass. >>> >>> Electrons have mass and so they are particles. >>> >>> Electrons can go off into empty space with no need for aether. >>> >>> Such is NOT the case for photons. >>> >>>> >>>>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. >>>> >>>> Like a bullet needs something there to fly through? A bullet won't >>>> propagate in a vacuum? >>> >>> It will for it is not a disturbance. It is a mass with a velocity. >>> On the other hand sound will not fly through a vacuum. >>> >>>>> How is the notion of the entire infinite universe getting filled with >>>>> infinitely small particles of solid matter more difficult to grasp, I cannot >>>>> understand. >>>> >>>> With current theory, there simply isn't any need for any such thing. >>>> No need for it, no way to detect it, so it gets discarded as useless. >>>> >>>> Besides, if it was a solid, it would move as a unit. So we can detect its >>>> velocity relative to us. I hear there were a couple of guys named >>>> Michelson and Morley who had an answer to that. >>>> >>>>> A wave is a disturbance. >>>>> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. >>>> >>>> Things like electrons and photons act only somewhat like waves. >>>> >>>>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. >>>> >>>> No, you are regurgitating old 19th century thinking. You're like John >>>> Sefton, thinking that if it doesn't go along with how he thinks, it must >>>> be wrong. Not that John's thinking is wrong, he can't be wrong, so the >>>> whole universe must be wrong. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 11:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om4sfv$1tsg$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644359 |
On 8/4/17 10:17 AM, Serg Io wrote: > On 8/3/2017 10:44 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On Thursday, August 3, 2017 at 2:00:44 AM UTC+3, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> 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. >> >> From cats giving live birth to kittens >> From cows giving live birth to calves >> From Mexicans giving live birth to babies >> From dogs giving live birth to puppies >> >> Since these mammals give live birth to offspring, platypuses need to >> give live birth to their offspring. >> > > > > > same kind of logic; > > a man has two legs > a monkey has two legs > therefore all men are monkeys What you see exhibited here is a shallowness of thinking. Sure, there is a correlation between the presence of a water wave and of the water. Sure there is a correlation between sound and the presence of air. However, the correlation does not provide the explanation. It helps to ask questions like: - What is it about the medium that a disturbance propagates instead of just sit there and oscillate? - Why is it that the initial displacement in the original location is followed by a displacement in the other direction? - Why do the waves tend to follow a sinusoidal shape in the simplest cases? When you actually try to answer these with some depth, you find that the behavior of a wave in a medium is determined by using Newton's laws of motion in that medium, and there is a common trait that the acceleration of a bit of the medium is proportional to the displacement, and furthermore, the time derivative of the displacement is proportional to the spatial derivative of the displacement. The latter is what couples the spatial and time derivatives that are so critical to wave behavior. In other words, it isn't JUST the presence of the medium that is critical, it is the relationship between the time and spatial derivatives of the displacement that is critical. Without that 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4fc992fa-87f0-4654-9063-27a67cbd6e2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644567 |
Odd "critical, it is the relationship between the time and spatial derivatives of the displacement that is critical. Without that mathematical relationship, the presence of the medium would mean nothing. " Time. You discovered that Time is involved. Awesome
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om51rv$6n8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644587 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "critical, it is the relationship between the time and spatial > derivatives of the displacement that is critical. Without that > mathematical relationship, the presence of the medium would mean nothing. " > Time. > You discovered that Time is involved. > Awesome > I didn't discover it. It's been known for 3 centuries. Also, a bit more nailed down than "time is involved". -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 11:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8d8a8967-a99f-4d46-8fcb-17a9379bf7e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644594 |
Odd " I didn't discover it. It's been known for 3 centuries. Also, a bit more nailed down than "time is involved". " Good job. Math is still not reality. Zero volume is still impossible. Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small'). Structure is still required for objects. As you were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <om53oa$9kb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644597 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " > I didn't discover it. It's been known for 3 centuries. > Also, a bit more nailed down than "time is involved". > " > > Good job. > Math is still not reality. > Zero volume is still impossible. > Zero size is still impossible (or 'infinitely small'). Prove that. > Structure is still required for objects. Prove that. > As you were. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <332fea5f-7d40-4b7d-a5c8-cdee475697fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644599 |
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. Remember to take your pills.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web