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 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 19:09 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <f04ea667-b25c-4f81-aa1f-2dad96707404@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646802 |
Odd "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. " The iterations are galaxy- atom - subatom. Each shoots off its own radiations. Galaxy shoots quasars (redshifted because they are speeding). Atom shoots photons. Subatom shoots subphotons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 02:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <ong5g6$til$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646806 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> tarded: >Odd >"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. " >The iterations are galaxy- atom - subatom. >Each shoots off its own radiations. >Galaxy shoots quasars (redshifted because they are speeding). You really don't even know what quasars are? Hint: Galaxies don't 'shoot' quasars. Quasars are extremely bright objects at the center of some galaxies. They are believed to be accretion disks around supermassive black holes at the center of the galaxies. They 'shoot' ordinary photons (but lots and lots of them). >Atom shoots photons. >Subatom shoots subphotons. No evidence of that, of course.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 20:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <41cb2f1b-9e15-4bce-b650-cc38ea5b34fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646810 |
Odd " at the center of some galaxies. They are believed to be accretion disks around supermassive black holes at the center of the galaxies. They 'shoot' ordinary photons (but lots and lots of them). >Atom shoots photons. >Subatom shoots subphotons. No evidence of that, of course. " Halton Arp saw pairs of Quasars that HAD BEEN the accretion discs travelling away from their parent galaxy in exactly opposite directions (entangled photons) at .11c Read some Arp- open your eyes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 20:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <c9f2efca-2508-4ebf-abd7-a34081e5fc3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646813 |
MM Sorry, called you Odd. Okay, at each iteration, in your starship made of that gauge matter, you look up and see galaxies stretching away forever, and you could go on forever and it would still be that size of everything. The Black Hole is where there is NO MATTER of your gauge because the gauge below is in a vortex, and any matter that falls in gets shredded and shot back out. It's a HOLE in our reality, though, so the name is good. But the gauge below matter is "aether", and photons are waves in that aether, so when they encounter the vortex, they are sucked in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 20:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <63ff58ec-9c9e-48ff-a00d-28e4861e9aa0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646814 |
MM/Odd This spinning volume of Space should be able to absorb the radiations of that matter produced by that Space, and thus appear to be an absorbing body, when in fact there is nothing there but spinning Space.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 13:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onhcps$iel$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646815 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM/Odd >This spinning volume of Space should be able to absorb the radiations of >that matter produced by that Space, and thus appear to be an absorbing >body, when in fact there is nothing there but spinning Space. Kook Babble. And how can there be spin if you explicitly state that there is no matter in there to spin?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 14:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <a5b39e88-73cb-43f6-91eb-cadb7d559fb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646832 |
MM "- show quoted text - Kook Babble. And how can there be spin if you explicitly state that there is no matter in there to spin? " None of OUR iteration of matter. There is only that smaller matter that matter is built from- the submatter/aether. There is none of OUR matter, but wouldn't you agree, Michael, there is no such thing as nothing. Everywhere there must be structure at some level. When the next smaller matter/aether spins, it can go much faster than our matter. When our matter gets in, it turns into jets of HEPs.
[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 | <onif3v$1jav$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646869 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > "- show quoted text - > Kook Babble. And how can there be spin if you explicitly state that there > is no matter in there to spin? > " > None of OUR iteration of matter. > There is only that smaller matter that matter is built from- the > submatter/aether. There is none of OUR matter, but wouldn't you agree, > Michael, there is no such thing as nothing. Everywhere there must be > structure at some level. > > When the next smaller matter/aether spins, it can go much faster than our > matter. When our matter gets in, it turns into jets of HEPs. > WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything! -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 17:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <37fee5f6-d4b6-4450-94d0-d423896c5618@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646879 |
Odd "WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything! " It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom". It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size, they are equal. So, if galaxies are atoms, then atoms are galaxies, and are composed of yet another iteration of matter. This subatomic Space is the aether. Photons make waves in it. BHs are vortices in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 00:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onij3q$rmr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646885 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything! " >It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom". Which, as you have demonstrated, has no basis in reality. No pattern of anything for "iteration". >It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size, They are not the same size at all. > they are equal. >So, if galaxies are atoms, They are not. > then atoms are galaxies, They are not. > and are composed of yet another iteration of matter. This subatomic >Space is the aether. Photons make waves in it. BHs are vortices in it. Kook babble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 18:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <3406024f-5a22-4ef9-adf2-31541b710a8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646887 |
MM " >It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size, They are not the same size at all. " Uh, okay Michael. Anyone else notice that Odd and Michael seem to have become almost demented in their stupidity?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 01:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onim2i$1r6i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646885 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > "WHAT "iteration"? You have no established pattern of anything! " > > It's called "The Galaxy Model for the Atom". > It says that when you bring galaxies and atoms to the same size, they are equal. > So, if galaxies are atoms, then atoms are galaxies, and are composed of > yet another iteration of matter. This subatomic Space is the aether. > Photons make waves in it. BHs are vortices in it. > Let me repeat: two points do not establish a pattern. You have no pattern in OBSERVED things established. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 19:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <57ac3f1e-48d9-41f2-9fdd-8b5ee27e80c7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646896 |
Odd "Let me repeat: two points do not establish a pattern. You have no pattern in OBSERVED things established. " When 'fundamental ' particles were proposed and installed in Standard Model, wasn't that the whole hypothesis? That it's a one and only? The hypothesis, here, is an equality of galaxies with atoms OUTSIDE of size and time differences. Matter is a RECURRING pattern like Russian Dolls. Galaxy. Model. for. the. Atom. Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 19:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <788fcaaf-75a9-44b9-b5cd-21ac961cfe32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646903 |
A Black Hole is a spinning vortex in the aether that doesn't allow any of our atoms to exist in that space. The aether is structured from a much smaller version of our matter, and can turn far faster than our charge-based atoms can take, so when our atoms fall in they shred and are blown away as jets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 09:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onk1t4$1pi1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646903 |
On 8/22/17 9:32 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "Let me repeat: two points do not establish a pattern. You have no pattern > in OBSERVED things established. " > > When 'fundamental ' particles were proposed and installed in Standard Model, wasn't that the whole hypothesis? > That it's a one and only? There is no hypothesis of fractal "layers" or self-similarity with the standard model. None. You have a hypothesis of an infinite number of "layers" or "iterations" or whatever, but you do not even have an observable pattern that exhibits any of that. Two points do not make a pattern. A mouse and an elephant 100,000 times different in mass and both being mammals exhibiting four legs and a tail does not even SUGGEST that there is a four-legged, tailed mammal that is 100,000 times more massive than an elephant, or a four-legged, tailed mammal that is 100,000 times less massive than a mouse. Two points do not exhibit an observed pattern. Period. > The hypothesis, here, is an equality of galaxies with atoms OUTSIDE of size and time differences. Matter is a RECURRING pattern like Russian Dolls. Galaxy. Model. for. the. Atom. > > Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 13:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <3bda2830-329e-4108-aa53-61eb45bd91c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646922 |
Odd "There is no hypothesis of fractal "layers" or self-similarity with the standard model. None. " That's what I'm saying. On the basis of zero evidence, Standard Model says the buck starts here. I really don't understand why you would think that possible, or likely, or credible in any manner. But as you have said, you're not a logical person. I wonder why you attempt to do Science? Odd?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 16:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onkskj$167i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646961 |
On 8/23/17 3:20 PM, john wrote: > Odd > "There is no hypothesis of fractal "layers" or self-similarity with the > standard model. None. " > > That's what I'm saying. > On the basis of zero evidence, Standard Model says the buck starts here. No, the evidence consists of experiments specifically designed to see internal structure. The experiments do not show any indication of structure. So what you propose is some INVISIBLE and UNDETECTABLE structure that you think should be presumed regardless of the current evidence. This you think has something to do with "logic", but instead it comes from some axiom that you have adopted and have never questioned: That all things have structure. Notice that you have NO REASON for this axiom. You just believe it. Belief without reason or evidence is called faith. Do not confuse logic with faith. Notice also that you attempt to buttress this axiom by applying it elsewhere, claiming some fundamental fractal self-similarity, with layers going down ad infinitum. Notice however, you have NO EVIDENCE of fractal self-similarity of the composition of things, because you only have two points: atoms and galaxies. Two points does not establish any kind of observed pattern, and so there is not one reason to think that this principle of infinitely layered fractal structure of matter holds. Not one observation. Counter this with the experimental evidence for lack of structure. Do you see the difference between the observation-based thinking that goes behind fundamental particles, and the lack of observation-based thinking that goes behind your infinite-layers-of-structure idea? > I really don't understand why you would think that possible, or likely, or credible in any manner. But as you have said, you're not a logical person. I wonder why you attempt to do Science? > Odd? > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 13:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <5ad12d2c-159d-41dd-939b-a3fee9838533@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646903 |
On Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 10:32:20 PM UTC-4, john wrote: [] > The hypothesis, here, is an equality of galaxies with atoms > OUTSIDE of size and time differences. Matter is a RECURRING > pattern like Russian Dolls. Galaxy. Model. for. the. Atom. Sorry John. I have told you before, physicists have looked at that idea and rejected it. It has been tested and found lacking any predictive power. > > Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. A framework that doesn't work. Again, in peer reviewed journals, such research is not accepted because when analyzed with real data, it just doesn't work. > Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way > symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting. The Standard Model has some very clear patterns. Your failure to understand them does not make them invalid. And the Standard Model has successfully predicted other particles. IOW, it works. The similarity principle (Galaxies<==>atoms) is tested and fails. Sorry John, but nature just doesn't seem to work the way you want. Murphy's 5th law: Mother Nature is a B.... Enjoy. Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 13:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <fe9613f4-8b92-4581-a8af-28b45838f7ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646969 |
ed " Sorry John. I have told you before, physicists have looked at that idea and rejected it. It has been tested and found lacking any predictive power. " When? How? By whom. "> > Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. A framework that doesn't work. Again, in peer reviewed journals, such research is not accepted because when analyzed with real data, it just doesn't work. " When? How? By whom. "> Standard Model has no pattern. They try - eightfold way > symmetry and such. But it's useless to go past bean counting. The Standard Model has some very clear patterns. Your failure to understand them does not make them invalid. And the Standard Model has successfully predicted other particles. IOW, it works. " There are countless particles when you break an atom. "The similarity principle (Galaxies<==>atoms) is tested and fails. " Again- when, how, by whom.? Sorry John, but nature just doesn't seem to work the way you want. Murphy's 5th law: Mother Nature is a B.... Enjoy. Ed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 14:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <eec8a7f2-53f4-4cc7-9d4f-231067b4ced8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646974 |
On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 4:54:50 PM UTC-4, john wrote: > ed > " > Sorry John. I have told you before, physicists have looked at > that idea and rejected it. It has been tested and found lacking > any predictive power. " > When? How? By whom. > > > "> > > Repeat all you want. Galaxy Model gives a framework to work with. > > A framework that doesn't work. Again, in peer reviewed journals, > such research is not accepted because when analyzed with real > data, it just doesn't work. " > When? How? By whom. > here's one guy that wants a fractal universe similar to yours: Robert L. Oldershaw http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html I have looked at his stuff. It does not make sense. Obviously he has not convinced his physics colleagues. He sometimes comments on the IOP website. He does have publications in respected peer reviewed journals. Here is an example of where the fractal nature of space may work, or at least hint at how we can improve our ideas. https://phys.org/news/2009-03-spacetime-fractal-properties-quantum-scale.html But taking the pattern to larger scales finds the fractal pattern does not work. https://www.space.com/17234-universe-fractal-large-scale-theory.html https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22214-giant-fractals-are-out-the-universe-is-a-big-smoothie/ Not proof that your idea about electrons is wrong, but it cuts you off at this universe. IOW galaxies are not electrons in a larger universe. And unless you find a way to measure things smaller than a Planck length, you are not going to find any evidence for your electrons being made of smaller particles. (If the electron does have a size, it is smaller than a Planck length.) So there's some light reading for you. Oldershaw is your man for this idea. If it proved correct, he gets the Nobel prize. But I liked his idea but I find his mathematics unconvincing. There are few if any testable predictions. But have some fun with it. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web