Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #645182 > unrolled thread
| Started by | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-08 14:18 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-14 19:23 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 230 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:18 -0700
I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 14:23 -0700
Re: I figured out charge zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-08 14:44 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 15:58 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 16:03 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 16:34 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-08 23:34 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:54 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:05 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-08 23:28 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 16:44 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 16:47 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-08 17:05 -0700
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-08 21:51 -0400
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:05 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:50 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-10 03:53 +0000
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-09 02:33 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 06:02 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-10 03:47 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 20:51 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-10 18:42 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 09:47 -0500
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 17:44 -0400
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 15:23 -0700
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-09 20:44 -0400
Re: I figured out charge Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 16:15 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 08:27 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-09 10:52 -0700
Re: I figured out charge zubeneschgenubi@gmail.com - 2017-08-09 16:02 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 13:53 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 14:55 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 16:58 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 15:06 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 17:11 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 15:40 -0700
Re: I figured out charge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 16:16 -0700
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-10 20:28 -0400
Re: I figured out charge pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-08-10 21:48 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-11 12:59 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 18:36 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-10 19:36 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:06 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:14 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 06:29 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:40 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 07:21 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 07:21 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 08:21 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 17:54 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 12:15 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 14:44 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 05:41 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 06:49 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 07:05 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 08:28 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:43 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 08:59 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:26 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 13:52 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 20:59 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 14:23 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 15:43 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:12 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 18:34 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 05:11 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 08:04 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 08:21 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-14 02:21 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 19:34 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 19:46 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 03:05 +0000
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-14 03:15 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 04:49 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-14 14:05 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:20 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-14 16:35 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 09:47 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-14 19:55 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 16:40 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 18:24 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-15 13:21 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 06:34 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:00 +0000
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-15 17:39 +0000
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-15 18:12 -0400
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:07 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 19:45 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 22:18 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 22:28 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 05:49 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 06:10 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 06:25 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:51 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 16:13 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-16 16:09 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 10:05 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 10:10 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 13:38 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 12:51 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-16 18:26 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 18:24 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 01:46 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:08 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 02:28 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:39 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 03:22 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 04:51 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:39 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 06:00 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 13:22 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-17 09:01 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 09:06 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-17 09:18 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 15:28 +0000
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:39 -0400
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 07:51 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:02 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 09:32 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:57 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:02 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:05 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:10 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:30 -0700
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:30 -0400
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 15:18 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 08:32 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:03 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 09:34 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:58 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-17 16:00 -0500
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:27 -0400
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 09:13 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 09:36 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:01 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:05 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:17 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:21 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:32 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 20:27 +0000
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 18:18 -0400
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 17:14 -0500
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 19:21 -0400
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 05:54 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 07:59 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 06:25 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 08:33 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 08:49 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 07:25 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 08:15 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:56 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:55 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 12:54 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:37 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:09 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:10 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 07:19 -0700
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-17 17:50 -0400
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:13 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:20 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:26 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 20:10 +0000
At the start of the Big Bang, "black holes" ( Black Stars ) were much larger. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 10:13 -0700
Re: At the start of the Big Bang, "black holes" ( Black Stars ) were much larger. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 12:23 -0500
Better Servers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-17 10:34 -0700
Better Servers. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:05 -0700
Re: Better Servers. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 17:11 -0500
Re: At the start of the Big Bang, "black holes" ( Black Stars ) were much larger. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 19:54 +0000
Re: At the start of the Big Bang, "black holes" ( Black Stars ) were much larger. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 19:58 +0000
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 15:56 +0000
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-17 15:41 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 08:57 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-17 11:16 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:45 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-16 16:05 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 11:01 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:36 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-15 04:27 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 05:20 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-15 13:34 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 06:42 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 09:02 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:45 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:21 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-15 17:48 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:42 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 11:25 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 19:31 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 18:31 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 19:31 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:01 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:00 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 16:40 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 23:45 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 16:58 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 17:08 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:42 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 08:34 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 07:30 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 11:55 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:21 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:16 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 15:27 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-16 09:35 -0500
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 10:24 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 11:39 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:10 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 12:47 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:28 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-15 12:27 -0500
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-14 11:28 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-16 15:23 +0000
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-13 01:06 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 00:12 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 18:01 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-13 01:01 +0000
Re: I figured out charge Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 10:42 -0500
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-13 02:27 +0000
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-12 19:55 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 19:59 -0700
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:12 -0700
Re: I figured out charge Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-13 20:22 -0700
Re: I figured out charge moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-13 01:11 +0000
Re: I figured out charge benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-11 18:18 -0400
Re: I figured out charge john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-11 16:48 -0700
Re: I figured out charge "Efftard K .Donglemeier" <sender@hotmail.com> - 2017-08-14 19:23 -0700
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-14 18:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f11ae78-3c73-4948-9f67-e5fda3998aca@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645944 |
MM and ed and Odd You think there's no underlying structure required for Matter. You think there can be waves in Nothing. You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter that travels in the opposite direction that it acts, but nobody has seen it. You think that electrons are 'fundamental', while at the same time believing that the third electron that each Carbon in Benzene shares somehow spreads itself out wherever necessary. You think there are 'virtual particles' popping in and out of Nothing. And that, for you, is rational, somehow? Who talked you into these bizarre beliefs? WHY would you believe these obviously insane things? Serious question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 13:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omushk$d6a$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #645953 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM and ed and Odd >You think there's no underlying structure required for Matter. Well, there's no need for it, and if predicted fundamental particles really are fundamental, there simply can't be any structure. >You think there can be waves in Nothing. Remember, things like photons and electrons are both wavelike and particlelike. A bullet doesn't need an aether to propagate, does it? Does an electron need an aether to propagate? Why should a photon need one? > You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter No, John, gravity is curvature in spacetime. >that travels in the opposite direction that it acts, but nobody has seen it. Kook babble. > You think that electrons are 'fundamental', while at the same time >believing that the third electron that each Carbon in Benzene shares >somehow spreads itself out wherever necessary. What is the conflict? Besides, all orbital electrons are distributed over space. >And that, for you, is rational, somehow? Who talked you into these bizarre >beliefs? Bizarre beliefs like precessing spinning galaxies that violate half the laws of nature? > WHY would you believe these obviously insane things? > Serious question. What's so "obviously insane" about any of that? If it's so "obvious", you should be able to explain it easily.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 06:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5b6e9a6e-28a8-448c-b6c7-4d762377f622@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645993 |
Odd "> You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter No, John, gravity is curvature in spacetime. " ULTRAFUDGE HOW!!!!!! does the matter "curve" this "space" that you just said has no substance? How does "curved" NOTHING do ANYTHING???? YOU are the kook here. Or zombie, rather. Your collection of "beliefs" will have everyone rolling on the floor. They'll laugh and laugh.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omv29q$enm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645995 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "> You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter > > No, John, gravity is curvature in spacetime. > " > > ULTRAFUDGE > > HOW!!!!!! does the matter "curve" this "space" that you just said has no substance? > How does "curved" NOTHING do ANYTHING???? Space time isn't Nothing. That is a claim you have made up and you sprinkle that nonsense in with other claims to make them sound silly. The only thing that's silly is your claim that spacetime is Nothing. Stop it. > > YOU are the kook here. > Or zombie, rather. > Your collection of "beliefs" will have everyone rolling on the floor. > They'll laugh and laugh. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 17:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omvbl4$6rb$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #645995 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"> You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter >No, John, gravity is curvature in spacetime. >" >ULTRAFUDGE No, John, it is what is predicted by GR. >HOW!!!!!! does the matter "curve" this "space" that you just said has no substance? >How does "curved" NOTHING do ANYTHING???? Curved spacetime, John, not curved nothing. Physics doesn't get too involved with "How" and "Why" since this is an infinite chain. Like answering a question from a 3 year old, the child will respond "Why?". Answer that and you get "Why?", forever. Regardless, just think of this: Mass tells spacetime how to curve. Curved spacetime tells mass how to move. If you want, you can think of gravitation as a field mediated by virtual gravitons, very much like electromagnetic attraction/repulsion. It works although it is not currently considered correct, with GR being the actual correct interpretation. Unlike electromagnetism, gravitation is attract only. >YOU are the kook here. >Or zombie, rather. Say what? Scientists all over the world are modeling the universe using GR/curved spacetime. >Your collection of "beliefs" will have everyone rolling on the floor. >They'll laugh and laugh. No, the laughter you hear isn't people laughing with you. It is people laughing _at_ you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 18:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <599371c6$0$10580$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #646022 |
On 8/15/2017 1:39 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > >> Odd >> "> You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter > >> No, John, gravity is curvature in spacetime. >> " > >> ULTRAFUDGE > > No, John, it is what is predicted by GR. > >> HOW!!!!!! does the matter "curve" this "space" that you just said has no substance? >> How does "curved" NOTHING do ANYTHING???? > > Curved spacetime, John, not curved nothing. Curved nonsense.Math is not reality. > Physics doesn't get too involved with "How" and "Why" since this is > an infinite chain. Like answering a question from a 3 year old, the > child will respond "Why?". Answer that and you get "Why?", forever. Sure it ends. It ends with "because I said so" just like most of the posts here do. > Regardless, just think of this: Mass tells spacetime how to curve. > Curved spacetime tells mass how to move. Total garbage. What you have is a model that produces results that mimic what is measured with gravity (more or less). But somehow you've turned that around and made the math fantasy your real world and the real world fantasy. A mathematical model is NOT the universe. Period. > If you want, you can think of gravitation as a field mediated by virtual > gravitons, very much like electromagnetic attraction/repulsion. It works > although it is not currently considered correct, with GR being the actual > correct interpretation. Unlike electromagnetism, gravitation is attract > only. Gravitons are as imaginary as space-time. Nobody from Newton on has produced ANY credible actual mechanism for gravity (with the possible exception of the Wheeler-Feynman theory). Yet you all pretend that these bogus theories "explain" gravity. The do NO SUCH THING> They "describe" gravity! >> YOU are the kook here. >> Or zombie, rather. > > Say what? Scientists all over the world are modeling the universe using > GR/curved spacetime. Yeah, and a lot of them believe in it too, just like you do. But bad news: Science is not determined by a democratic vote of scientists. >> Your collection of "beliefs" will have everyone rolling on the floor. >> They'll laugh and laugh. > > No, the laughter you hear isn't people laughing with you. It is people > laughing _at_ you. Whistling past the graveyard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 15:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <omv2e7$etl$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645953 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM and ed and Odd > > You think there's no underlying structure required for Matter. Right. Why do you think otherwise. Give a sound reason. > You think there can be waves in Nothing. No, waves in space time, not Nothing. Next.... > You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter that travels in the opposite > direction that it acts, but nobody has seen it. No, that's YOU that somehow has the impression that gravitational radiation is like little BBs radiated outward. No idea where you got that idea. > You think that electrons are 'fundamental', while at the same time > believing that the third electron that each Carbon in Benzene shares > somehow spreads itself out wherever necessary. Yes, being fundamental and having a spatial distribution are not inconsistent. Why do think it is? Give a sound reason. > You think there are 'virtual particles' popping in and out of Nothing. Yes. Why do you think this is impossible? Give a sound reason > > And that, for you, is rational, somehow? Who talked you into these > bizarre beliefs? WHY would you believe these obviously insane things? Serious question. > 1. The idea of a structureless particle is not bizarre. It's been around for 2500 years. Are all those people just nuts? 2. Waves don't require a medium, never have. What causes waves has been explained to you: laws of physics. 3. Opposite charges obviously attract each other, observationally, and this is caused by exchange of electromagnetic radiation. You think this is impossible somehow, and yet it obviously happens. You've never explained how it can happen, nor have you argued in any way that it does not happen. 4. Having structure doesn't have anything to do with having a spatial distribution. Why do you think there is a connection? Give a sound reason. 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Works in hundreds of applications. None of these are insane. You think Democritus and Maxwell and Heisenberg are insane?? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 15:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <omvk9j$1c1e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #645953 |
On 8/14/17 8:24 PM, john wrote: > MM and ed and Odd > > You think there's no underlying structure required for Matter. You think there can be waves in Nothing. You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter that travels in the opposite direction that it acts, but nobody has seen it. You think that electrons are 'fundamental', while at the same time believing that the third electron that each Carbon in Benzene shares somehow spreads itself out wherever necessary. You think there are 'virtual particles' popping in and out of Nothing. > > And that, for you, is rational, somehow? Who talked you into these bizarre beliefs? WHY would you believe these obviously insane things? Serious question. > Following up a little more, John, and focusing on a couple things you said above: "You think there can be waves in Nothing." "You think Gravity is a radiation from Matter that travels in the opposite direction that it acts." No physicist says either of these things. Yes, they are crazy, but mostly because you've made them up. It's YOUR INTERPRETATION or, more specifically, YOUR DISTORTION of something you may have heard in a YouTube video or a magazine article. So be careful to distinguish what it is that physicists ACTUALLY say, and what it is you THINK you heard them say. Because usually the latter has nothing to do with the former, and the craziness of the statements is because you got the statement wrong. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 19:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f950e49d-e040-4314-bfdf-6cd17f77247b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #645953 |
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 9:24:27 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > MM and ed and Odd > > You think there's no underlying structure required for Matter. First You do not get to tell me how I think. Mostly because you simply are using that phrase to set up a straw man argument. For macro scale matter there is certainly underlying structure. And there are various underlying structures several layers down. My desk is make of various sized pieces of wood. I can see the shapes and the seams between each piece. Each piece of wood contains grains of wood. I can see them by the variation in the color in the wood. Those grains of wood contain what were once walls for living cells. This can be seen in a microscope. Those grains are composed of molecules of cellulose and other molecules. Those molecules can be observed by powerful electron microscopes. The molecules are composed of atoms. This can be observed by the consequences of how they react, for example when they are involved in chemical reactions, such as burning. The atoms are composed of protons, neutrons, electrons. These are observed by chemical reactions, by electrical and magnetic actions, or within particle detectors such as a cloud chamber or CRT screen. Those Protons and Neutrons within an atom are found to react in ways that reveal other particles such a neutrinos. This is observed in radioactivity and in the detector chambers of particle accelerators. These even reveal the existence of equivalent particles called antimatter. (This is observed indirectly by the mass energy balance of all reactions, including subatomic ones.) Neutrons and protons appear to be composed of smaller constituents, while electrons do not seem to break down further. This is again observed indirectly by the mass energy balance of reactions produced in even stronger particle accelerators. From these reactions we conclude that Protons and Neutrons must be composed of elements which we now call quarks. Sadly no matter how hard we try, we haven't cracked an electron into other parts. So now we have reached our limit. Is it possible there are yet more fundamental particles? Maybe, but we have no observations of any reactions that reveal they exist. This is the key role of particle physics, to try and find the next fundamental level. As long as there is no evidence for it existing, we HAVE to conclude it does not exist. If new data was found tomorrow suggesting the electron, for example, was made of smaller parts, Physicists would be happy. I hope this very simplified description of the lower layers of material structures shows that at each layer it is DATA (measurements) that lead to the description needed for the next layer. And to repeat: so far no data points to electrons having internal structure. Why does it stop there? we currently think we know, it fits the Standard model of sub atomic particles. By remember, a theory/model can be proven wrong by new data. Find that Data, John, and I will not only agree with you, I will proclaim your success to others. But until that day I have to say, your view of "galactic electrons" within a model of a fractal universe is nothing but a pipe dream. I'll leave gravity for another time. > You think there can be waves in Nothing. You think Gravity > is a radiation from Matter that travels in the opposite > direction that it acts, but nobody has seen it. You think > that electrons are 'fundamental', while at the same time > believing that the third electron that each Carbon in > Benzene shares somehow spreads itself out wherever necessary. Because the measurements (i.e., the data) about electron clouds in molecules match the calculations that predict the electrons' behavior. > You think there are 'virtual particles' popping in and out of Nothing. What part of 'virtual particles' do you not understand? > > And that, for you, is rational, somehow? > Who talked you into these bizarre beliefs? > WHY would you believe these obviously insane things? > Serious question. And it deserves a serious answer. I studied Physics in college. No professor ever badgered me into believing anything in physics. They all simplied showed me how to do the calculations. How to do the measurements. Then asked me to do the calculations and measurements for myself. I measured the data. I plotted the graphs. I compared what the calculations predicted with those measurements. You could say I learned physics by doing it. If the results "seem" insane, it seems to be because reality set it up that way. I studied physics to try to understand how the world and universe REALLY works, not to get it to match my preconceived ideas. The universe really is more wonderful and fantastic than our feable imaginations can achieve. I am happy learning about reality, John. Are you truly happy spouting your unsupported views of the universe?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 22:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9a215975-c2d8-4570-b5a0-36aefe0d9232@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646127 |
ed "find the next fundamental level. As long as there is no evidence for it existing, we HAVE to conclude it does " I rest my case
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-15 22:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5375e5a5-609f-4562-8e65-a45d7f2e3c65@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646136 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 3:18:09 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > ed > "find the next fundamental level. As long as there is no > evidence for it existing, we HAVE to conclude it does " > > I rest my case You win it, as do various unicorns that we HAVE to conclude do exist. Being even-handed here, and with cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 05:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8132ae91-028a-4cdf-9dbe-c3a71c90662a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646136 |
On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 1:18:09 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> ed
> "find the next fundamental level. As long as there is no
> evidence for it existing, we HAVE to conclude it does "
not exist. {putting back the rest of my sentence (ed)}
>
> I rest my case
Good. So you are finally done spouting nonsense?
that's good to know.
ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 06:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <00272b55-7066-4695-a60b-2d0c4d1100cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646153 |
ed " > > I rest my case Good. " ed, the problem with the Standard "Model" is that it is just bean-counting. You only add parts by observation. You don't do logic. You have no vision. It's not a model- its bean-counting. The POINT of Physics is to find useful tools that will allow us to EXTRAPOLATE. It's not possible to see past a certain distance oy smaller than a certain size. What then, with your bean-counting? No more work for you bean-counters that REFUSE to use logic and insight. You call that Science? Really? I HAVE a model. It equates galaxies with atoms. It PREDICTS things, and EXPLAINS observations like the spherical halo, and where the 3rd Benzene electrons go, and how galactic discs are precessing to skew the galactic rotation curves. YOU spew nonsense- AND ITS NOT EVEN YOUR OWN!!! Laughable, how you can believe all that no-structure, no-pathway, no volume, no detail shit. But every time you say that planets "curve" spacetime, a zillion aliens ROTFL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 06:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3c0d6f89-67b0-4bce-81f1-78374ed71fc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646155 |
Odd from https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-01-stars-halo-milky-groups.amp The team of astronomers were bewildered of the beaviour of halo stars that spend most of the time in the outskirts of the Milky Way. Surprisingly more than 70% of those stars appear to be moving in the opposite sense than the vast majority of stars in the Milky Way. Such a high fraction is unexpected in current models. Helmi: "One may compare stars from the outer halo with commuters that drive the wrong way. We do not yet quite understand why." THEY may not understand why. But AYE have a model. Every time the disk PRECESSES around, the rotation is OPPOSITE http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF THEY don't understand because they don't have a model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <on1m5t$84u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646156 |
On 8/16/17 8:25 AM, john wrote: > Odd > from > https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-01-stars-halo-milky-groups.amp > The team of astronomers were bewildered of the beaviour of halo stars that spend most of the time in the outskirts of the Milky Way. Surprisingly more than 70% of those stars appear to be moving in the opposite sense than the vast majority of stars in the Milky Way. Such a high fraction is unexpected in current models. Helmi: "One may compare stars from the outer halo with commuters that drive the wrong way. We do not yet quite understand why." > > THEY may not understand why. > But AYE have a model. > Every time the disk PRECESSES around, the rotation is OPPOSITE > http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF > > THEY don't understand because they don't have a model. > Why didn't you quote the rest of the article that DOES talk about their model about why this happens? "The Milky Way, our own Galaxy, has likely formed in part from the merging of many smaller systems.... To learn more about the history of formation of the Milky Way, astronomers ... have inspected the motions of stars in the so-called Galactic halo. Stars in the halo are more pristine and spend most of their time outside of the disk-like structure that gives the Milky Way its name. It is thought that these halo stars are the stars that joined the Milky Way onboard of small galaxies. ... Helmi: "This indicates that the stars indeed originate from small galaxies that were cannibalised by the Milky Way a very long time ago". The astronomers describe these groups as large flows of stars like flocks of birds traveling together through the Milky Way. "We believe there might be tens or even hundreds such flocks. At the moment, we only see small groups with just a few stars, but that is probably because we do not yet have all the necessary data". This model features a Milky Way that formed in stages rather than all at once, incorporating smaller clusters that now retain some of their original motions. This model accounts for the different ages of stars in the layered structure of the halo, as well as accounts for the "flocks" of stars that have differential motion compared to the rest of the galaxy. Why is it that you just don't SEE this stuff when you read it? Do you just look for the sentences that include "don't understand" or "bewildered"? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 16:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <on2ch6$1cjr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646166 |
On 8/16/17 9:51 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/16/17 8:25 AM, john wrote: >> Odd >> from >> https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-01-stars-halo-milky-groups.amp >> >> The team of astronomers were bewildered of the beaviour of halo stars >> that spend most of the time in the outskirts of the Milky Way. >> Surprisingly more than 70% of those stars appear to be moving in the >> opposite sense than the vast majority of stars in the Milky Way. Such >> a high fraction is unexpected in current models. Helmi: "One may >> compare stars from the outer halo with commuters that drive the wrong >> way. We do not yet quite understand why." >> >> THEY may not understand why. >> But AYE have a model. >> Every time the disk PRECESSES around, the rotation is OPPOSITE >> http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/NeonAnimation.GIF >> >> THEY don't understand because they don't have a model. >> > > Why didn't you quote the rest of the article that DOES talk about their > model about why this happens? > > "The Milky Way, our own Galaxy, has likely formed in part from the > merging of many smaller systems.... To learn more about the history of > formation of the Milky Way, astronomers ... have inspected the motions > of stars in the so-called Galactic halo. Stars in the halo are more > pristine and spend most of their time outside of the disk-like structure > that gives the Milky Way its name. It is thought that these halo stars > are the stars that joined the Milky Way onboard of small galaxies. > ... Helmi: "This indicates that the stars indeed originate from small > galaxies that were cannibalised by the Milky Way a very long time ago". > The astronomers describe these groups as large flows of stars like > flocks of birds traveling together through the Milky Way. "We believe > there might be tens or even hundreds such flocks. At the moment, we only > see small groups with just a few stars, but that is probably because we > do not yet have all the necessary data". > > This model features a Milky Way that formed in stages rather than all at > once, incorporating smaller clusters that now retain some of their > original motions. This model accounts for the different ages of stars in > the layered structure of the halo, as well as accounts for the "flocks" > of stars that have differential motion compared to the rest of the galaxy. > > Why is it that you just don't SEE this stuff when you read it? Do you > just look for the sentences that include "don't understand" or > "bewildered"? > John, just a follow-up to this. I know you would dearly love to have an idea that might be interesting in an area where physicists have just tossed up their hands and are saying, "We have no idea." It's like an amateur astronomer discovering a new comet or a new galaxy. The chief challenge you face is that a lot of things that you think are completely unexplained are just not that way, and in just about every case you've raised up, there is already a pretty good sense of what's going on. This isn't to say that there aren't open questions in physics. But you don't know what they are. And because you have read so little, and what you do read you read thinly, you're not making much headway in figuring out where they are. It's like an amateur astronomer looking up in the sky and seeing a comet that HE hasn't seen before and claiming, "Aha! A new comet, never before seen!" when in fact it is already logged in observational catalogs. Your unfortunate reaction so far has been to say, "Well, physicists CLAIM it's not new ground, but their explanation makes no sense to me, and so as far as I'm concerned it's not explained and so is new ground." That's an emotional response, not a rational one. What you COULD do is decide to find out what PHYSICISTS acknowledge are the open questions, so that you can start thinking about the answers to those. But to do that, you'd have to learn some physics, which involves studying and reading. The thing you have to remember that when an amateur discovers a new comet or a new galaxy, that amateur has studied the professional data deeply enough to know whether it is new or not. Or you can take the approach of Henry Wilson who says that no data accumulated by physicists in the last 100 years is reliable, it's all too close to the edge to be convincing, and that experimentalists have only observed what they wanted to observe. This denial of evidence is not something I hope you do. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <on1qol$gs2$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646156 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >from >https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2017-01-stars-halo-milky-groups.amp >THEY may not understand why. >But AYE have a model. >Every time the disk PRECESSES around, the rotation is OPPOSITE >THEY don't understand because they don't have a model. WTF, John? You snipped the part where they go into quite a bit of detail about their Milky Way model!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <168f3bb1-a94a-4edc-980b-5e834d7e1f89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646173 |
Michael ">THEY don't understand because they don't have a model. WTF, John? You snipped the part where they go into quite a bit of detail about their Milky Way model! " So? Can't you just read? You ALWAYS snip- wtf WTF?? Go back and read it. If you want to believe their mishmash, believe it. Doesn't make it true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <32d99d47-89cc-4e15-92a5-e4a619bd811d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646176 |
Odd By the way. Just Google for shit instead of demanding me to do so, okay? Thx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-16 13:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <on23ek$uck$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646177 |
On 8/16/17 12:10 PM, john wrote: > Odd > By the way. > Just Google for shit instead of demanding me to do so, okay? > Thx > John, if you make reference to a particular recent result, you really should make note of at least the name of the physicist reporting the result. Sometimes you describe things so vaguely or inaccurately that it's impossible to get a fix on it. This is common practice in science, and you should pick up some of the basic here. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web