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 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 14:54 -0500 |
| Subject | For Sefton, on whether gravity is ever infinite or not. |
| Message-ID | <on7gl5$172m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
John Sefton is incensed about the idea of a black hole, because he read somewhere that the central idea of a black hole is infinite gravity, and he will insist that gravity has to be finite (even though he believes the size of the universe is infinite). And because he believes this is the central lynchpin of black holes, then a belief in finite gravity means to him that black holes are denied. But John is kinda missing the boat on what makes a black hole. First of all, let's get straight what a black hole is. A black hole happens when a sufficiently large but FINITE amount of matter falls inside a sufficiently small but FINITE radius. This radius is called the Schwarzchild radius. That radius is r = 2GM/c^2. All you have to do is get more mass than M inside that radius r, and you will have a black hole. A black hole simply means that ANYTHING that falls inside this radius will never get out or send anything out. Things outside of this radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting around and never falling in. The idea of a black hole swallowing everything on the OUTSIDE of this radius is just bullshit, gradeschool bullshit. Some stuff will fall in, sure, just like some stuff falls into the sun, but the planets have not fallen into the sun for billions of years. So far, there is absolutely nothing about infinite anything here. So now the question is, why don't ALL stars compress under gravity and become black holes. The reason is that there are sources of outward pressure, obviously, and if the outward pressure equals the inward pull of gravity, then collapse doesn't proceed. In ordinary burning stars, what provides the outward pressure is heat from nuclear fusion. Heat pushes matter outward, as anyone who has watched a firecracker knows. If gravity is enough to pull it in (more than a firecracker's gravity, for sure), then there can be a balance, which is like our sun. When the fuel for fusion is gone, then there is no fusion to provide heat to push things outward, and the star starts to collapse, until a new outward force pushes it out. That outward force is almost exactly the same thing that makes a metal solid. It's called electron degeneracy, and it's basically the Pauli exclusion principle at work. Electrons in the same state cannot get too close to each other, because they are fermions. It's this repulsion, not from electrostatics, but from Fermi statistics and the Pauli principle, that makes metal solid, and it also makes burnt-out stars resist gravitational collapse. But if you get enough gravitational pressure coming from the further collapse, then you can introduce something that only happens extremely rarely in solid materials, and that's the electron being squeezed into the nucleus for long enough periods of time that it interacts with a proton and generates a neutron. Do this enough, and all of the atoms collapse into the size of their nuclei, which is a trillion times smaller and more dense. Since there are equal numbers of protons and electrons, you're going to end up with something like a solid again, but now made up entirely of neutrons. The good news is that neutrons are also fermions, and the Pauli exclusion principle also applies to them, and so you can't just squeeze neutrons together forever, before they want to push each other away and you now have outward pressure. When that balances gravity, then you have a stable neutron star, of which we've seen plenty. But if this neutron star collapse brings enough mass close enough together that you're inside the Schwarzchild radius, then gravity is strong enough to not be balanced by neutron degeneracy. So then another collapse happens just like the previous ones. The difference here is that we're not aware of any other layer of degeneracy pressure that might cause another balance with gravity. So AS FAR AS WE KNOW, there is nothing to stop the collapse from gravity and it is ASSUMED that it will just continue unstopped. However, as this all happens inside the Schwarzchild radius, we WILL NEVER KNOW anyway, because we can't see anything coming out to tell us what's going on. All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a black hole, and what happens inside after that is moot. So John .... get over it. The crap comic book stuff you read about black holes is cheapo, sloppy, popularization nonsense. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f9ec176-49c1-4a81-a7f8-ae59bb49459b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646446 |
On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 3:54:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > John Sefton is incensed about the idea of a black hole, because he read > somewhere that the central idea of a black hole is infinite gravity, and > he will insist that gravity has to be finite (even though he believes > the size of the universe is infinite). And because he believes this is > the central lynchpin of black holes, then a belief in finite gravity > means to him that black holes are denied. > > But John is kinda missing the boat on what makes a black hole. > > First of all, let's get straight what a black hole is. A black hole > happens when a sufficiently large but FINITE amount of matter falls > inside a sufficiently small but FINITE radius. This radius is called the > Schwarzchild radius. That radius is r = 2GM/c^2. All you have to do is > get more mass than M inside that radius r, and you will have a black > hole. A black hole simply means that ANYTHING that falls inside this > radius will never get out or send anything out. Things outside of this > radius can be perfectly happy, orbiting around and never falling in. The > idea of a black hole swallowing everything on the OUTSIDE of this radius > is just bullshit, gradeschool bullshit. Some stuff will fall in, sure, > just like some stuff falls into the sun, but the planets have not fallen > into the sun for billions of years. > > So far, there is absolutely nothing about infinite anything here. > > So now the question is, why don't ALL stars compress under gravity and > become black holes. The reason is that there are sources of outward > pressure, obviously, and if the outward pressure equals the inward pull > of gravity, then collapse doesn't proceed. > > In ordinary burning stars, what provides the outward pressure is heat > from nuclear fusion. Heat pushes matter outward, as anyone who has > watched a firecracker knows. If gravity is enough to pull it in (more > than a firecracker's gravity, for sure), then there can be a balance, > which is like our sun. > > When the fuel for fusion is gone, then there is no fusion to provide > heat to push things outward, and the star starts to collapse, until a > new outward force pushes it out. That outward force is almost exactly > the same thing that makes a metal solid. It's called electron > degeneracy, and it's basically the Pauli exclusion principle at work. > Electrons in the same state cannot get too close to each other, because > they are fermions. It's this repulsion, not from electrostatics, but > from Fermi statistics and the Pauli principle, that makes metal solid, > and it also makes burnt-out stars resist gravitational collapse. > > But if you get enough gravitational pressure coming from the further > collapse, then you can introduce something that only happens extremely > rarely in solid materials, and that's the electron being squeezed into > the nucleus for long enough periods of time that it interacts with a > proton and generates a neutron. Do this enough, and all of the atoms > collapse into the size of their nuclei, which is a trillion times > smaller and more dense. Since there are equal numbers of protons and > electrons, you're going to end up with something like a solid again, but > now made up entirely of neutrons. The good news is that neutrons are > also fermions, and the Pauli exclusion principle also applies to them, > and so you can't just squeeze neutrons together forever, before they > want to push each other away and you now have outward pressure. When > that balances gravity, then you have a stable neutron star, of which > we've seen plenty. > > But if this neutron star collapse brings enough mass close enough > together that you're inside the Schwarzchild radius, then gravity is > strong enough to not be balanced by neutron degeneracy. So then another > collapse happens just like the previous ones. The difference here is > that we're not aware of any other layer of degeneracy pressure that > might cause another balance with gravity. So AS FAR AS WE KNOW, there is > nothing to stop the collapse from gravity and it is ASSUMED that it will > just continue unstopped. However, as this all happens inside the > Schwarzchild radius, we WILL NEVER KNOW anyway, because we can't see > anything coming out to tell us what's going on. > > All of this is to point out that infinite gravity is NOT a logical > must-have for black-holes. All that is needed is enough FINITE gravity > to overcome the FINITE neutron degeneracy pressure, and you'll have a > black hole, and what happens inside after that is moot. > > So John .... get over it. The crap comic book stuff you read about black > holes is cheapo, sloppy, popularization nonsense. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Very nice exposition there Odd. Good work. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 20:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black Holes violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. |
| Message-ID | <z5Wdndas9Z9XDgrEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #646447 |
On 8/18/17 8/18/17 5:37 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote:
> How much energy would it take to escape a true black hole ?
That depends on what you mean.
> 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. This evidence has convinced most astrophysicists
that these are indeed black holes, so it is not at all "zero".
The supermassive object at the center of the Milky Way exhibits several key
aspects that are explained by it being a black hole, and which are not explained
by any other known object:
* X-rays characteristic of infalling matter, without the resulting
collision with a surface.
* the cutoff and redshift of emissions from that infalling matter are
consistent with it being a black hole.
* stars orbiting it come closer than the radius of any other known type
of object with comparable mass (~ 4.1E6 solar masses).
In addition, the gravitational waves observed by LIGO are not consistent with
any known hypothesis other than that they were generated by collisions between
black holes.
Attempting to argue from your own ignorance is never a good plan.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-18 23:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <bae68b5d-cc8b-466c-bfd3-3f1863ad7cea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646480 |
Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating proximity of objects. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of us Humans anymore.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-19 03:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <5997e832$0$60270$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #646491 |
On 08/19/2017 02:07 AM, john wrote: > Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and > people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, > there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money > doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating > proximity of objects. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of > us Humans anymore. > Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a certain placement of magnets. This is certainly the end of problems for civilization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 06:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <a7092249-10dc-46fc-9878-a17d1d86fad3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646498 |
On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 5:26:47 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 08/19/2017 02:07 AM, john wrote: > > Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and > > people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, > > there is no free lunch. How mean. My father has done a lot to establish orphanages where orphans get not only free lunches but breakfast and dinner too. And schooling and board. All paid for by kindly altruists. Here in Australia, lots more than free lunches are given to the unemployed, the elderly, refugees, disabled, etc. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money > > doesn't grow on trees. Not any more. Money is made by machines and distributed by machines. Energy can't be produced by manipulating > > proximity of objects. Yes it can. Energy is always getting created and destroyed with kinetic interaction of matter following the fundamental forces of electricity. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of > > us Humans anymore. All those who believe in e=mcc are embarrassments to humanity and science. > > > > Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have > invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a > certain placement of magnets. Yes, they have made a successful realisation of the Perendev simulation, and that is a huge breakthrough in physics. It validates what I found back in 1999. > > This is certainly the end of problems for civilization. True. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 09:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <oneqiv$1tbm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646498 |
On 8/19/2017 2:26 AM, benj wrote: > On 08/19/2017 02:07 AM, john wrote: >> Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and >> people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, >> there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money >> doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating >> proximity of objects. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of >> us Humans anymore. >> > > Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have > invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a > certain placement of magnets. > > This is certainly the end of problems for civilization. hard to buy one though, the exchange rate sucks: 105 PKR to a buck And they have to send a technician over with it to re-adjust the magnets if it dosen't work. I just ordered one of these for only $10,000,000 PKR ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Aag0J0Qe4 Delivery in 26 weeks [no need for pesky magnets or alignment, or technician]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 09:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <oner2o$1u6e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646725 |
On 8/21/2017 9:26 AM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/19/2017 2:26 AM, benj wrote: >> On 08/19/2017 02:07 AM, john wrote: >>> Lofty What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and >>> people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, >>> there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money >>> doesn't grow on trees. Energy can't be produced by manipulating >>> proximity of objects. Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of >>> us Humans anymore. >>> >> >> Hey John, haven't you been listening to Banjo? The pakistanis have >> invented perpetual motion where limitless energy is obtained just by a >> certain placement of magnets. >> >> This is certainly the end of problems for civilization. > > hard to buy one though, the exchange rate sucks: 105 PKR to a buck > > And they have to send a technician over with it to re-adjust the magnets > if it dosen't work. > > > I just ordered one of these for only $10,000,000 PKR ! > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Aag0J0Qe4 > > > Delivery in 26 weeks > > [no need for pesky magnets or alignment, or technician] darn, I did not order the accelerator bottle.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwOblAnQnh4
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 08:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onemia$1mhl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646491 |
On 8/19/17 1:07 AM, john wrote: > Lofty > What Odd forgets and many many before him have forgotten and people will forget forever because everyone wants a free lunch is, there is no free lunch. Everything has to come from somewhere. Money doesn't grow on trees. 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. Where have you been? Matter falling under the influence of gravity producing great gobs of energy near the centers of galaxies is a straightforward extension of that little dabbling with water over a couple hundred feet that we do. > Just come ON, now. Don't embarrass the rest of us Humans anymore. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 06:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <698dac15-5e79-4320-9d8a-63c4f95b2be7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646714 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 15:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onfh2f$15lk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646719 |
On 8/21/17 8:53 AM, 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. > The energy of the sun elevates the water, yes. The fall of the water 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. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 14:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <bda12db0-e1a7-4381-890c-c8e7c3d687d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646759 |
On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 1:50:31 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/21/17 8:53 AM, 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. > > > > The energy of the sun elevates the water, yes. The fall of the water > 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. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables 285,000 miles before a spaceship enters the BH event horizon it measures 66,000 miles in length macro,and all atoms are oval relative to macro.Rate of time is one tick every million Earth years.Its speed increases to 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of c.The end of spacetime.Acceleration and gravity emerge as one.Gravity as always on top When acceleration + gravity move a neutron to 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 of c it becomes as heavy as the universe.It will be a BH that has to implode.I'm explaining G=EMC^2 in a round about way,and it still fits well with my "Mass Density Theory that Creates BH Implosion" Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 15:39 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onfn88$bpg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #646767 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> whose handle anagrams to __"reber A. Hitler, z0g@ gmail.com"__, wrote: "I'm explaining G=EMC^2 in a round about way,and it still fits well with my "Mass Density Theory that Creates ___Bert's Hemorrhoids___" (BH) Implosion", whose G=EMC^2 says: "Glazier Exhibits Micro Cephalic Cretinism". > Bert has shown for the whole last last week, & made it clear that Glazier is a Judeo-Nazi, a Bigot, a Racist, a Hater, a Mooch & a Swine that has the inner need to be reminded that Glazier is a Face Shitter & a criminal Graveyard vandal, just like it says 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> 5)---------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 15:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <c9c52eac-5809-41a8-8fe8-c2208ae56b9e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646759 |
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. We have the galaxy field and the atom field. We can travel between them, our starship among the galaxies, but made of atoms, forever. Then there is the sub-atom field. Fractal starships with fractal us inside can travel among the atoms, which to them are galaxies, forever. And so on. It is the same thing. The sub-atom field. And it goes down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 15:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <3e9da80f-5b9d-49e6-ab18-f072af4d2e1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646786 |
So, a Black Hole is a place in the atom field where no atoms can exist. It is an actual hole in our level. And that is because the sub-atom field, on which atoms depend for structure, is spinning too fast, right there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 23:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onfr4g$1lco$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646786 |
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?" > We have the galaxy field and the atom field. > We can travel between them, our starship among the galaxies, but made of atoms, forever. > Then there is the sub-atom field. Fractal starships with fractal us > inside can travel among the atoms, which to them are galaxies, forever. > And so on. It is the same thing. The sub-atom field. And it goes down. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 17:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <1f21fda2-782b-4cc8-9577-6c8bef3613ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646796 |
Odd " > > 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. " Well, what term is correct for the different iteration sizes? What term would you like?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 18:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <5009ace5-2b87-46c6-9807-a6332dfa8464@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646798 |
Odd "" > > 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. " Well, what term is correct for the different iteration sizes? What term would you like? " How about "iteration "? Galactic iteration. Atomic iteration. Subatomic iteration. Subsub iteration. I like it. Okay, Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 02:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <ong4lq$cjo$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646800 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >> 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. " >Well, what term is correct for the different iteration sizes? What term >would you like? " >How about "iteration "? Galactic iteration. Atomic iteration. Subatomic >iteration. Subsub iteration. How about 'kook babble'? Or maybe simply word salad?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 01:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <ong0od$1rpj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646798 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " >> >> 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. " > > Well, what term is correct for the different iteration sizes? What term would you like? > First off all, you have not established ANY repeating pattern with layers or iterations or fractal dimensions or whatever. So suppose you just lay out in a LIST the milestone objects that you think demonstrate a repeating pattern. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web