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 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om9pmv$1qa$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644837 |
On 8/6/17 2:23 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:57:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/4/17 10:00 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 12:45:28 PM UTC+10, MaryK wrote: >>>>> On 8/4/2017 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> 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! >>>>>> >>>>>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. >>>>>> >>>>>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes, >>>>>> neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as thin >>>>>> steel mesh through sticky sand. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How forces and >>>>>> velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is only one >>>>>> force and that is electro-magnetic. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> same kind of logic; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a man has two legs >>>>>>> a monkey has two legs >>>>>>> therefore all men are monkeys >>>>>> >>>>>> Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution. >>>>>> But that is not my point. >>>>>> >>>>>> A wave is a disturbance. >>>>>> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. >>>>> >>>>> an EM wave needs no medium, it is just equations, E field and H field >>>> >>>> Those equations deal with the reality of the electric and magnetic fields. >>>> Electric and magnetic field exist. >>> >>> Yes, they exist. They are not an aether, notice. >> >> They are not aether but they use aether for propagation when they vary with >> time to create an em wave. > > And what makes you think so. The laws of physics that govern electric and > magnetic fields make no mention of any aether or its properties. In fact > the laws dictate propagation of the fields themselves. I hear no answer but from the crickets. > >>> >>>> To pretend they do not is dishonesty. >>>> That we can neglect aether as the medium of propagating radiation does not >>>> mean that it does not exist. >>> >>> Your supposed aether may exist, but since it is not necessary for the >>> propagation of disturbances in electric and magnetic fields (both of >>> which are real), then what purpose does this aether serve? >> >> It serves to carry them as a medium. > > And since the medium is not needed for propagation, as you say yourself, > why presume a medium is needed? Nothing but the sound of crickets. > >> >> One way as well ask what purpose water serves for sea or river or lake transport. >> >> Yes, when seas dry up such transport stops. >> >> Such cannot be the case with aether so we take it for granted. >> >> As to why we need aether - >> It is to show how energy is getting created and destroyed with force upon >> electrons, with their inter-action with aether. > > What energy creation? And what does this have to do with propagation of the > disturbances in the fields? Don't get distracted. > >> >> Something new here, I think. >> >> And fundamental to my new physics. More in due course... >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >> >>>> I do hope the world gets out of the stupid-ostrich benj state soon. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Deductive logic: >>>>>> 1. It rained >>>>>> 2. The streets are wet >>>>>> >>>>>> Inductive logic: >>>>>> 1. The streets are wet >>>>>> 2. It rained >>>>>> >>>>>> So once we agree that light is a wave >>>>>> We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation. >>>>>> No sliming out! >>>>>> >>>>>> The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this, >>>>> >>>>> is that like a club they join? get a newsletter ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> so they insist >>>>>> that light is a particle at times, and a wave at another times; this >>>>>> schizophrenic nature of light was hypothesised by one de Broglie. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9849e38c-9eb8-407e-9aca-41455ea99350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644837 |
A medium? Madame d'Esperance comes to mind. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Madame_d%27Esperance.png Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <108e63f2-1718-4bd1-8748-e4c58d81ec93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645016 |
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 2:14:09 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote: > A medium? > > Madame d'Esperance comes to mind. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Madame_d%27Esperance.png > > Double-A Twin particles take their wave with them and that tells much.Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 22:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ome670$f9b$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #645156 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "... my thinking is mostly empty it might have no shape. Since its shape does not relate to anything its shape has little or no value"... "and that tells much.Trebert" -- LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59866bce$0$61769$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #644456 |
On 8/4/2017 10:44 PM, MaryK wrote: > On 8/4/2017 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> 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! >> >> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. >> >> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. >> >> I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes, >> neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, >> etc. >> >> 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. >> >> Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as >> thin >> steel mesh through sticky sand. >> >> Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How >> forces and >> velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is >> only one >> force and that is electro-magnetic. >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> same kind of logic; >>> >>> a man has two legs >>> a monkey has two legs >>> therefore all men are monkeys >> >> Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution. >> But that is not my point. >> >> A wave is a disturbance. >> Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. > > an EM wave needs no medium, it is just equations, E field and H field So light is nothing but a fantasy. Got it. You been staying overnight with Odd? Better get back to selling cosmetics. >> I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. >> >> Deductive logic: >> 1. It rained >> 2. The streets are wet >> >> Inductive logic: >> 1. The streets are wet >> 2. It rained >> >> So once we agree that light is a wave >> We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation. >> No sliming out! >> >> The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this, > > is that like a club they join? get a newsletter ? Secret organization. You know like all Lib media belong to secret Marxistians.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 11:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om4tba$1tsg$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644454 |
On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > 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! > > A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. > > Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do. > > I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes, > neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, etc. > > 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. > > Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as thin > steel mesh through sticky sand. > > Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How forces and > velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is only one > force and that is electro-magnetic. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee >>> >> >> >> >> >> same kind of logic; >> >> a man has two legs >> a monkey has two legs >> therefore all men are monkeys > > Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution. > But that is not my point. > > A wave is a disturbance. > Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. > > I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. > > Deductive logic: > 1. It rained > 2. The streets are wet > > Inductive logic: > 1. The streets are wet > 2. It rained > > So once we agree that light is a wave > We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation. > No sliming out! > > The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this, so they insist > that light is a particle at times, and a wave at another times; this > schizophrenic nature of light was hypothesised by one de Broglie. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-05 22:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0baa29ad-bfea-4fb5-b06c-1b760620e9ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644574 |
On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:56:15 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > 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! > > > > A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. > > > > Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. > > Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in > propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do. The 19th century physicists did. I have been elaborating upon their concepts of aether. I have extended them to include aether in the intra-atomic space. As the electron moves back into its normal position it disturbs the surrounding aether. This disturbance propagates through space. 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. So light is a particle of mass, and so as it has mass it bends with gravity. So light from the stars got bent during the eclipse of the sun with respect to their nightly positions. But... as the bending of light was an optical effect caused by the Sun's atmosphere, there is at the least the scope for DOUBLE COUNTING or we have to accept that light is aetheric disturbance with NO MASS and if light has no mass the it is not a particle it is a disturbance. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > > > I don't see how this is a more strange concept than alternate universes, > > neutrinos, quarks, continuously distorted space-time, invariance of c, etc. > > > > 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. > > > > Electrons and protons (which make up matter) go through the aether as thin > > steel mesh through sticky sand. > > > > Well, we will investigate this a bit further, in due course. How forces and > > velocities make up the structure of the universe and that there is only one > > force and that is electro-magnetic. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> same kind of logic; > >> > >> a man has two legs > >> a monkey has two legs > >> therefore all men are monkeys > > > > Or descended from a common ancestor if we believe in evolution. > > But that is not my point. > > > > A wave is a disturbance. > > Disturbance has to have a medium for propagation. > > > > I am talking deductive logic. Not inductive. > > > > Deductive logic: > > 1. It rained > > 2. The streets are wet > > > > Inductive logic: > > 1. The streets are wet > > 2. It rained > > > > So once we agree that light is a wave > > We have to agree that light must have medium for propagation. > > No sliming out! > > > > The Eisnteinians (not all are as stupid as benj) know this, so they insist > > that light is a particle at times, and a wave at another times; this > > schizophrenic nature of light was hypothesised by one de Broglie. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 15:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om7vrv$1809$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644744 |
On 8/6/2017 12:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:56:15 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> 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! >>> >>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. >>> >>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. >> >> Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in >> propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do. > > The 19th century physicists did. > I have been elaborating upon their concepts of aether. > I have extended them to include aether in the intra-atomic space. > As the electron moves back into its normal position it disturbs the > surrounding aether. how? there is no interaction, there is no aether, that was proven long ago. Google " Michelson–Morley experiment " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment > This disturbance propagates through space. > > 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. > > So light is a particle of mass, and so as it has mass it bends with gravity. > So light from the stars got bent during the eclipse of the sun with respect to > their nightly positions. > > But... > as the bending of light was an optical effect caused by the Sun's atmosphere, > there is at the least the scope for DOUBLE COUNTING did you read the analysis ? > or > we have to accept that light is aetheric disturbance with NO MASS > and > if light has no mass the it is not a particle > it is a disturbance. there is no evidence or proof of aether anywhere. >>>> same kind of logic; >>>> >>>> a man has two legs >>>> a monkey has two legs >>>> therefore all men are monkeys
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-06 20:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58f66534-c7fb-4bb7-a850-f833882c9b23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644848 |
On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:57:41 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote: > On 8/6/2017 12:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:56:15 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> 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! > >>> > >>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. > >>> > >>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. > >> > >> Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in > >> propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do. > > > > The 19th century physicists did. > > I have been elaborating upon their concepts of aether. > > I have extended them to include aether in the intra-atomic space. > > As the electron moves back into its normal position it disturbs the > > surrounding aether. > > how? there is no interaction, there is no aether, that was proven long > ago. Google " Michelson–Morley experiment " Which was a huge bungle > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment > > > This disturbance propagates through space. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > So light is a particle of mass, and so as it has mass it bends with gravity. > > So light from the stars got bent during the eclipse of the sun with respect to > > their nightly positions. > > > > But... > > as the bending of light was an optical effect caused by the Sun's atmosphere, > > there is at the least the scope for DOUBLE COUNTING > > did you read the analysis ? Did anyone other than myself say around 2005 that it was just an optical effect? Why should I bother about GR theories when the bending is just an optical effect? Put a pencil in a glass tumbler filled with water. Does the pencil actually bend or appear to bend? Refraction is the effect of the wave nature of light. Light is not schizophrenic. > > > or > > we have to accept that light is aetheric disturbance with NO MASS > > and > > if light has no mass the it is not a particle > > it is a disturbance. > > there is no evidence or proof of aether anywhere. > > > >>>> same kind of logic; > >>>> > >>>> a man has two legs > >>>> a monkey has two legs > >>>> therefore all men are monkeys
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 08:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om9qlb$48k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644891 |
On 8/6/2017 10:17 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 7, 2017 at 6:57:41 AM UTC+10, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/6/2017 12:46 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 2:56:15 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/4/17 9:34 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> 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! >>>>> >>>>> A wave must have a medium for otherwise it cannot progress. >>>>> >>>>> Something has to be there for the disturbance to propagate. >>>> >>>> Again, what is it about the medium SPECIFICALLY that results in >>>> propagation? Do you know the answer to this question? Physicists do. >>> >>> The 19th century physicists did. >>> I have been elaborating upon their concepts of aether. >>> I have extended them to include aether in the intra-atomic space. >>> As the electron moves back into its normal position it disturbs the >>> surrounding aether. >> >> how? there is no interaction, there is no aether, that was proven long >> ago. Google " Michelson–Morley experiment " > > Which was a huge bungle no, very clear results, reproduced thousands of times, with much higher accuracy. no aether detected at all. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment >> >>> This disturbance propagates through space. >> >> >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> So light is a particle of mass, and so as it has mass it bends with gravity. >>> So light from the stars got bent during the eclipse of the sun with respect to >>> their nightly positions. >>> >>> But... >>> as the bending of light was an optical effect caused by the Sun's atmosphere, >>> there is at the least the scope for DOUBLE COUNTING >> >> did you read the analysis ? > > Did anyone other than myself say around 2005 that it was just an optical effect? you are the only one. > Why should I bother about GR theories when the bending is just an optical > effect? you should study more. > Put a pencil in a glass tumbler filled with water. > Does the pencil actually bend or appear to bend? > Refraction is the effect of the wave nature of light. > Light is not schizophrenic. pencils, water, skitzoids, have nothing to do with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment >> >>> or >>> we have to accept that light is aetheric disturbance with NO MASS >>> and >>> if light has no mass the it is not a particle >>> it is a disturbance. >> >> there is no evidence or proof of aether anywhere. >> >> >>>>>> same kind of logic; >>>>>> >>>>>> a man has two legs >>>>>> a monkey has two legs >>>>>> therefore all men are monkeys >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 08:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <om9pou$1qa$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #644744 |
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. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cafae00b-dbbe-42b0-9c00-729f07eba3d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #644935 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omb6nd$852$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645047 |
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. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-07 19:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7bb3dfe-ea4d-43a2-96e8-e0b52eda2eaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645080 |
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 > > The mistake is yours, and it's a silly one born of ignorance. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 11:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omc6q6$1tqc$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645081 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. No. The first is Rest Energy only. The correct expression for the total energy of a particle is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 You have made a silly and obvious error. Because you did not bother reading. > 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 > > >> >> The mistake is yours, and it's a silly one born of ignorance. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 04:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <209b1076-fd95-4d4f-b6b5-8b2c873c0d35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645123 |
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:20:46 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. > > No. The first is Rest Energy only. The correct expression for the total > energy of a particle is > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 I was not talking about a particle. I was talking about a photon. Which has a frequency and Planck's constant too attached with it. The energy of a photon e = hv If you see this as a particle then that is its energy. > > You have made a silly and obvious error. Because you did not bother > reading. I have read enough of that nonsense. You are trying to twist matters with saying that I have made an error whereas you have confused a particle with a photon. > > > 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 > > > > > >> > >> The mistake is yours, and it's a silly one born of ignorance. Rubbish. It is mere algebra, provided you belief in that e=mcc rubbish. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2017-08-08 07:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omcbtc$88g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645124 |
On 8/8/17 6:32 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:20:46 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. >> >> No. The first is Rest Energy only. The correct expression for the total >> energy of a particle is >> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > > > I was not talking about a particle. > I was talking about a photon. The formula above applies to photons AND other particles. > Which has a frequency and Planck's constant too attached with it. > The energy of a photon e = hv Yes, the energy of the photon is described this way. > If you see this as a particle then that is its energy. But that is not to be equated with e=mc^2. It is to be equated with the E in E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 For the photon, m is zero, which is what any physicist will tell you, but p is not zero. So for a photon E = pc, and E = hv So that pc=hv or p = hv/c. You have made a silly and obvious error. Because you did not bother reading. > >> >> You have made a silly and obvious error. Because you did not bother >> reading. > > I have read enough of that nonsense. > You are trying to twist matters with saying that I have made an error whereas > you have confused a particle with a photon. No, sir, it is you that has made a silly error. I know it is hard for someone with delusions of divinity to stoop to confessing an error. A divine person as you imagine yourself to be is infallible, incapable of error, correct? > >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The mistake is yours, and it's a silly one born of ignorance. > > Rubbish. It is mere algebra, provided you belief in that e=mcc rubbish. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 19:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <598a4a7f$0$10708$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #645128 |
On 8/8/2017 8:47 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/8/17 6:32 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:20:46 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> 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. >>> >>> No. The first is Rest Energy only. The correct expression for the total >>> energy of a particle is >>> E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 >> >> >> I was not talking about a particle. >> I was talking about a photon. > > The formula above applies to photons AND other particles. > >> Which has a frequency and Planck's constant too attached with it. >> The energy of a photon e = hv > > Yes, the energy of the photon is described this way. > >> If you see this as a particle then that is its energy. > > But that is not to be equated with e=mc^2. > It is to be equated with the E in > E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 > > For the photon, m is zero, which is what any physicist will tell you, > but p is not zero. > So for a photon E = pc, and E = hv > So that pc=hv or p = hv/c. > > You have made a silly and obvious error. Because you did not bother > reading. > >> >>> >>> You have made a silly and obvious error. Because you did not bother >>> reading. >> >> I have read enough of that nonsense. >> You are trying to twist matters with saying that I have made an error >> whereas >> you have confused a particle with a photon. > > No, sir, it is you that has made a silly error. > I know it is hard for someone with delusions of divinity to stoop to > confessing an error. A divine person as you imagine yourself to be is > infallible, incapable of error, correct? Correct. Say Odd, Do not you recognize a certain similarity here in personal viewpoint and opinion of self to a certain of your butt-buddies that used to hang here? Namely HVAC?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 17:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1182ef95-aecf-4413-98d2-d23d24c7ae6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645217 |
benj "HVAC" Yes, I'm concerned about how quiet he's become
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-08 13:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omcdhk$qjv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #645081 |
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. >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. 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web