Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #646446 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 173 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 13:01 -0700
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:07 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 03:26 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:05 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:26 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 06:53 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 14:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-21 15:39 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 15:59 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 17:16 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 18:04 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:24 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 19:09 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 02:39 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:00 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:40 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 20:49 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:49 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 14:58 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 17:06 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 00:43 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 18:03 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:32 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 19:50 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 09:02 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:20 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:38 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:46 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:54 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:38 -0700
Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:32 -0700
Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 15:54 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:24 -0500
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:10 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 12:14 -0500
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 15:05 -0700
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:10 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 22:07 +0000
Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:31 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:39 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:47 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 13:53 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 07:51 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-22 15:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 08:25 -0500
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 17:58 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 21:05 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-22 18:00 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 02:34 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 13:51 -0700
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:15 -0700
Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 23:22 -0700
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 11:16 +0000
Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. NobelPrize.ORG @. - 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700
Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 08:32 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-19 17:46 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-19 14:08 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-19 17:20 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:34 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 01:33 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 21:04 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:07 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 10:57 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:17 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-20 11:19 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:00 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:29 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-20 18:26 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 11:58 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 16:39 +0000
Black Holes are math kook babble john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 11:46 -0700
Re: Retarded precessing spinny things are kook babble moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-21 20:07 +0000
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 15:09 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 14:13 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-20 18:07 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-20 16:31 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-21 08:33 -0500
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 07:00 -0700
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2017-08-19 12:45 -0400
Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-08-21 07:04 -0500
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-21 18:00 -0500
Re: More data, from more observers, is needed. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-23 10:41 -0500
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 11:55 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-24 00:03 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 21:26 +0000
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:32 -0700
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:48 -0500
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 22:12 +0000
Re: We can't see Sgr A* PROPER, directly. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:46 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-23 23:01 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-08-24 10:14 +0100
Re: A TRUE singularity has infinite precision, not +/- 45 AU. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-24 17:04 +0000
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-24 15:40 -0700
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:04 +0200
Re: Slowing lased photons to near ZERO meters/second. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 20:05 +0200
Re: Starting/Stopping light. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:45 +0200
Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 17:55 -0700
Re: Posting an email address to Usenet is just wrong. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:23 +0200
Give it your best shot, Thomas Lahn. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:08 -0700
Re: Give it your best shot, ****** ****. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 14:15 +0200
Thomas Lahn would ban URL's. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-26 13:36 -0700
Re: ****** **** would ban URL's. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-27 01:46 +0200
Re: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-08-28 15:55 -0700
Google Groups spam filter (was: Thomas Lahn's GoogleGroups Spam Remover.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-31 18:04 +0200
If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 18:39 -0700
Slow light (was: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it.) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:55 +0200
Viewed from earth, everything near an ideal event horizon appears frozen. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:47 -0700
Re: If this Wikipedia article is wrong, please fix it. benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:52 -0400
Re: kNode hasn't heard of MIME/HTML ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:47 +0200
The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-25 19:29 -0700
Re: The DEFAULT "Subject:" line is NEITHER mandatory or desirable. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 15:36 +0000
Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2017-08-26 11:56 -0700
Re: Usenet isn't Wikipedia; threads branch and morph, topics change. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 04:31 +0000
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-25 12:28 -0700
Re: There is no evidence that TRUE black holes exist, none. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:44 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 14:34 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:22 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 16:14 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:18 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 07:49 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 18:25 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:44 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:05 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 16:09 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:51 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:01 -0500
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 19:22 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 18:48 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:22 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:27 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-25 21:54 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 03:01 +0200
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 03:31 +0000
Re: Sgr* isn't even a "black hole", much less a PRECISELY known singularity. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-25 21:52 +0200
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2017-09-04 14:34 -0400
Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. Ethel Ocallaghan <unlgclo@awlwaac.ag> - 2017-09-05 11:40 +0000
Re: "Black Holes" are forever a notion, never measured. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 14:04 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-19 00:00 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-20 16:01 -0700
Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-08-21 12:54 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 14:44 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 22:15 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 15:26 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-18 18:54 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-18 21:06 -0500
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:25 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:55 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 14:17 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:27 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-25 15:37 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 15:50 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:29 -0700
For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:03 -0700
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 18:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <599ca99d$0$34679$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #646803 |
On 8/21/2017 9:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 08/21/2017 07:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Odd >>>> " >>>> makes that energy available to do other things. >>>> >>>> It is still the case that you can get energy be manipulating the >>>> proximity of objects. This is what potential energy is all about. It is >>>> location-based energy. >>>> " >>>> >>>> Let's call each level a field. >>> >>> Let's not. You're using a perfectly good physics term for some meaning >>> private to you, and you have no idea what the physics term "field" means. >>> >>> Just begging for talking past each other. You might as well walk into a >>> store in Paris and say, "I'm going to speak Mandarin, OK?" >> >> Works for Odd. He always just defines words using his own fantasies and >> wonders why everybody thinks he's an iudiot! >> >> > > I follow the definitions that physicists have agreed upon. This is the > jargon of physics. It is not mine. Nor is it identical to ordinary > colloquial language you find in a dictionary. It has to be learned. Don't > want to? Fine, get left behind. Enjoy the memories of the century gone by, > and sit on your front porch yelling, "You damn kids get off my lawn!" > So you and the physicists that you "like" (not all of them are wandering fantasy land with you) have generated your own land of lollipops and magic and the fact that you've all agreed between you means it's all true, right? This is not science. That is journalism.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 23:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onif40$1jav$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646871 |
benj <benj@nobody.net> wrote: > On 8/21/2017 9:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <nobody@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 08/21/2017 07:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Odd >>>>> " >>>>> makes that energy available to do other things. >>>>> >>>>> It is still the case that you can get energy be manipulating the >>>>> proximity of objects. This is what potential energy is all about. It is >>>>> location-based energy. >>>>> " >>>>> >>>>> Let's call each level a field. >>>> >>>> Let's not. You're using a perfectly good physics term for some meaning >>>> private to you, and you have no idea what the physics term "field" means. >>>> >>>> Just begging for talking past each other. You might as well walk into a >>>> store in Paris and say, "I'm going to speak Mandarin, OK?" >>> >>> Works for Odd. He always just defines words using his own fantasies and >>> wonders why everybody thinks he's an iudiot! >>> >>> >> >> I follow the definitions that physicists have agreed upon. This is the >> jargon of physics. It is not mine. Nor is it identical to ordinary >> colloquial language you find in a dictionary. It has to be learned. Don't >> want to? Fine, get left behind. Enjoy the memories of the century gone by, >> and sit on your front porch yelling, "You damn kids get off my lawn!" >> > So you and the physicists that you "like" (not all of them are wandering > fantasy land with you) have generated your own land of lollipops and > magic and the fact that you've all agreed between you means it's all > true, right? This is not science. That is journalism. > No, it is jargon. Jargon IS one of those things determined by consensus, just like the definitions of words in colloquial usage. (Yes, that is a majority vote thing.) Don't like it? Don't want "cool" to mean anything other than a temperature or a mood? Tough. Language is set by the community that uses it, by consensus. You want to piss upwind about it? Up to you. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 02:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <5b73f5b2-cdf8-4f35-a38b-87ac7f0a32b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646719 |
On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 11:53:36 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > Odd > "Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects. > > By making sure that water gets more proximal to the center of the earth > through a directed channel, hydroelectric dams have been generating lots > of electricity for Las Vegas and cities like that for some time now, John. " > > Mm hmmm. > The energy OF THE SUN is used and brings the water to where a dam can redirect it. Yes, and the energy from the Sun is everlasting. The magnetic field interacts with the plasma to move matter, which hit each other to create radiation. Endlessly. That energy is destroyed as it goes further and further into the universe When intercepted, as by Earth, it is used to do plenty of things such as raising water up into the air. All beautiful, wonderful, everlasting... part of the infinite and unending chain of material existence. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 13:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <a6675797-820f-4e0a-b29e-2e8fcb35a413@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646915 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 5:35:02 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 11:53:36 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > > Odd > > "Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects. > > > > By making sure that water gets more proximal to the center of the earth > > through a directed channel, hydroelectric dams have been generating lots > > of electricity for Las Vegas and cities like that for some time now, John. " > > > > Mm hmmm. > > The energy OF THE SUN is used and brings the water to where a dam can redirect it. > > Yes, and the energy from the Sun is everlasting. Long lasting? yes. Ever lasting? no. > The magnetic field interacts with the plasma to move matter, which hit each > other to create radiation. > Endlessly. You really don't know stellar life cycles at all. The sun does not last forever. > That energy is destroyed as it goes further and further into the universe Wow, what real misconceptions you have! > When intercepted, as by Earth, it is used to do plenty of things such as > raising water up into the air. Hey you got this right. > All beautiful, wonderful, everlasting... part of the infinite and unending > chain of material existence. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee Well we can agree that the universe is a wonderful place to be. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 23:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <3da82284-f530-497c-ad40-a2134365c8cd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646480 |
Jeff You ( Tom Roberts ) replied: > > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists; > > Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes > lie near the center of most galaxies. A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. " There's no object there, at all. That's spinning aether; the next lower Matter field. It goes too fast for charged Matter to survive in it, because the charges blow away from each other when you spin them that fast. It's black because light actually gets trapped.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 23:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <5a2b1ce1-ecde-4581-8cc7-826a666deffc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646492 |
Jeff Jeff You ( Tom Roberts ) replied: > > There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists; > > Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes > lie near the center of most galaxies. A very dense objects, yes. TRUE black holes, no. Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. " There's no object there, at all. That's spinning aether; the next lower Matter field. It goes too fast for charged Matter to survive in it, because the charges blow away from each other when you spin them that fast. It's black because light actually gets trapped. A thought here; Light may actually power Black Holes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 11:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <on96m0$1hjp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646492 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Jeff > > You ( Tom Roberts ) replied: >>> There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists; >> >> Not true. There is considerable evidence that supermassive black holes >> lie near the center of most galaxies. > > A very dense objects, yes. Very dense objects that do not shine. > TRUE black holes, no. I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you distinguishing a "true" black hole from something that looks and behaves like a black hole? Or are you saying that you believe in things that behave just like black holes but want to believe they are something else instead? > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. What? Try to explain that. > " > There's no object there, at all. > That's spinning aether; the next lower Matter field. > It goes too fast for charged Matter to survive in it, because the charges > blow away from each other when you spin them that fast. It's black > because light actually gets trapped. That last sentence is what "black hole" means, John. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | NobelPrize.ORG @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 07:45 -0700 |
| Subject | Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <NobelPrize.ORG@Aug.19--7.45am.Seattle.2017> |
| In reply to | #646510 |
You ( Odd Bodkin ) replied: > > Very dense objects, yes. > > TRUE black holes, no. > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. How are you distinguishing a "true" > black hole from something that looks and behaves like a black hole? Google "SemiClassical Black Star". > Or are you saying that you believe in things that behave just like > black holes but want to believe they are something else instead? "Somewhat like", not "just like". Stephen Hawking has been saying it since 2004, 13 years ago, long after you stopped learning about it ( due to dementia, I assume ). > > Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. > > What? Try to explain that. Quantum events are statistical, not mechanical; so: There's ZERO evidence that a true black hole exists. If you have REAL DATA to the contrary, you get the Nobel prize, along with Bert. Quantum Correlations are acausal, like a series of dice tosses. The Correlations say nothing about the next roll of the dice, but they _can_ tell you that, in 100 tosses, 2 ( snake eyes ) happens less often than 7 ( 3 + 4, 1 + 6, etc. ). Intrinsically, each toss is fully causal, not random. SemiRandomness is SemiIgnorance, nothing more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 08:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <b3ee9d11-ab9e-4bbf-ad25-9b6ef4cab182@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646517 |
Light may power black Holes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 17:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <on9tia$565$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646519 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Light may power black Holes. Babbling nonsense. What is there to power?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 14:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <ona2c0$u82$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646535 |
On 8/19/2017 12:46 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Light may power black Holes.
>
> Babbling nonsense. What is there to power?
>
All electrical sockets have two or three little black holes in them.
That is where the plug goes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 17:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <71e2547e-80ae-4bdb-ad67-13ab2309568e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646543 |
A BH is a vortex in the aether. A photon is a wave of energy in the aether. Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out. BH increases in energy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 00:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <onalfb$1rcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646569 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > A BH is a vortex in the aether. > A photon is a wave of energy in the aether. > Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out. > BH increases in energy > How is this experimentally distinguishable from general relativity? Remember the criteria of scientific thinking? What is the minimum mass of a black hole by your idea? Remember the criteria of scientific thinking? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 00:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <onalhi$1rf4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646570 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: >> A BH is a vortex in the aether. >> A photon is a wave of energy in the aether. >> Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out. >> BH increases in energy >> > > How is this experimentally distinguishable from general relativity? > Remember the criteria of scientific thinking? > What is the minimum mass of a black hole by your idea? Remember the > criteria of scientific thinking? > Or maybe you'll reply, screw that, I'm only interested in the idle speculation. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 01:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <onaot7$cru$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646569 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >A BH is a vortex in the aether. Kook Babble. There is no aether. >A photon is a wave of energy in the aether. More kook babble. >Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out. Wow, you actually got something correct for once!! >BH increases in energy Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all we detect is the mass. More accurate to say the BH increases in mass. (remember, E=mc^2, where E is the energy added by the photon E=hf) Regardless, this doesn't answer my question, what do you mean "powering" a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty350@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 21:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <05cfe975-06a2-4c38-96bd-bd09f9d59df7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646576 |
On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 4:33:30 AM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: > > >A BH is a vortex in the aether. > > Kook Babble. There is no aether. > > >A photon is a wave of energy in the aether. > > More kook babble. > > >Photon goes into BH and doesn't come out. > > Wow, you actually got something correct for once!! > > >BH increases in energy > > Once inside the black hole we cannot distinguish what's in there, all > we detect is the mass. More accurate to say the BH increases in mass. > (remember, E=mc^2, where E is the energy added by the photon E=hf) > > Regardless, this doesn't answer my question, what do you mean "powering" > a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? ======================== just remember that E=hf HAS MASS THE ONLY MASS !!!! === ATB Y.Porat ================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 10:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <51ec36bd-be1c-4e22-b395-749e0c32094f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646576 |
MM " question, what do you mean "powering" a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? " There is NO MATTER inside the BH. It is SPINNING 'SPACETIME'. No charges can remain together in the extreme spin, and they are blown out as jets. But what maintains the spin? Radiation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 10:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <9af6c89b-3159-47de-a8d3-fddc460c11c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646625 |
On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 10:07:17 AM UTC-7, john wrote: > MM > " question, what do you mean "powering" > a black hole? Do you mean feeding it to make it larger? " > > There is NO MATTER inside the BH. > It is SPINNING 'SPACETIME'. > No charges can remain together in the extreme spin, and they are blown out as jets. > > But what maintains the spin? Radiation. A BH reaches its critical mass density when there is no space between the neutron and proton.The electron also is not a cloud anymore.The cloud is now a point Also time and space are one.(merged) The BH now implodes into a singularity.Do not go to Google to find all of this.Its from the thinking of Treb and I.In reality Treb is 285 years ahead of Earth time.Get the picture.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 11:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <oncjh0$el$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646627 |
Get the picture.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-20 11:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Odd Bodkin gets the Nobel prize, along with Bert. |
| Message-ID | <oncjkc$qd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646627 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "Get the picture" that SwineBert loves to be reminded that Glazier is what it said in the following links about: > > _____ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim ________ <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>, <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker> <http://tinyurl.com/Jew-Swine-Glazier-cries> <http://tinyurl.com/SwineBert-s-WRONG-Predictions> <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve> <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>, <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal>. <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web