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 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 15:32 -0700 |
| Subject | Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <a1a8cab8-ab40-447e-935d-3b4469f58115@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646990 |
I'm getting some insights into BH/proton. It is spinning closed loops aether that forbids entry to anything made of that aether or larger. A proton is its own Universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 15:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <ff6c130c-6ea6-45f9-b72f-94d1cde13a93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647004 |
Odd How about calling our level Space, where atoms make up our Spaceship and we travel among galaxies? That should be nice and familiar for ya. Didn't change any terms. Now, we'll call the next level down the Aether. Still not Odd-upsetting, except THIS aether is just like Space above it. Exactly the same, but subatoms make up our Spaceship and fractal Us, and we travel among atoms. Then sub-aether, and going lower is unnecessary. The point being- structure. Down and down. Space can spin. The aether can spin, and does- it is the BH. The sub-aether can spin, and does- it is the proton.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 10:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <onmr46$277$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647006 |
On 8/23/17 5:54 PM, john wrote: > Odd > How about calling our level Space, where atoms make up our Spaceship and we travel among galaxies? That should be nice and familiar for ya. Didn't change any terms. > Now, we'll call the next level down the Aether. What "next level down". Again, you are presuming something for which there is no evidence. None. Why? > Still not Odd-upsetting, except THIS aether is just like Space above it. Exactly the same, but subatoms make up our Spaceship and fractal Us, and we travel among atoms. > Then sub-aether, and going lower is unnecessary. > The point being- structure. Which you ASSUME, without reason. As though structure is morally good or something. > Down and down. > Space can spin. The aether can spin, and does- it is the BH. > The sub-aether can spin, and does- it is the proton. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 09:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <198a0917-959d-45b2-a206-16d92fe062d0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647061 |
Odd "Which you ASSUME, without reason. As though structure is morally good or something. " What is a BH, if not substructure?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 17:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <onn17m$cm9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647065 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"Which you ASSUME, without reason. As though structure is morally good or >something. " >What is a BH, if not substructure? It's a lot of mass, so compact that it is within its event horizon. That's all. No need for "substructure" or other imaginary horseshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 12:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <onn1h3$ck8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647065 |
On 8/24/17 11:10 AM, john wrote: > Odd > "Which you ASSUME, without reason. As though structure is morally good or > something. " > What is a BH, if not substructure? > Already told you. A black hole is marked by an event horizon. See an event horizon, and you've got a black hole. There is absolutely nothing about substructure implied in that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 11:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <bc7f8547-013c-41a6-aa2c-78b98130643f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647073 |
For Odd from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141014114752.htm "Gwinn and his colleagues found that the images taken by RadioAstron contained small spots. "I was quite surprised to find that the effect of scattering produced images with small lumps in the overall smooth image," explained Gwinn. "We call these substructure. Some previous theories had predicted similar effects in the 1980s, and a quite controversial observation in the 1970s had hinted at their presence." Wrong again, Odd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 15:05 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <dc940c57-3302-41d6-95b8-4bdc16f5d414@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647077 |
Odd: from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/ "For the first time, astronomers have managed to measure the rate of spin of a supermassive black hole—and it's been clocked at 84 percent of the speed of light, or the maximum allowed by the law of physics."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 22:10 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <onnisj$183m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647107 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd: > from > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130301-black-hole-speed-of-light-einstein-science-astronomy-space/ > "For the first time, astronomers have managed to measure the rate of spin > of a supermassive black hole—and it's been clocked at 84 percent of the > speed of light, or the maximum allowed by the law of physics." > And this implies structure how? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-24 22:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <onnimf$17qn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647077 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > For Odd > from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141014114752.htm > > "Gwinn and his colleagues found that the images taken by RadioAstron > contained small spots. "I was quite surprised to find that the effect of > scattering produced images with small lumps in the overall smooth image," > explained Gwinn. "We call these substructure. Some previous theories had > predicted similar effects in the 1980s, and a quite controversial > observation in the 1970s had hinted at their presence." > > Wrong again, Odd > Read the article again, John. It says explicitly that nothing is emitted from within the black hole. Read it! It's right there! The spots are associated with the material OUTSIDE the black hole. Good lord, there's an obvious reason you don't read anything more than a paragraph long. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 08:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Thermodynamics, and its flipside ( gravity ), define everything. |
| Message-ID | <1b7f3c90-1948-4579-a8a3-186f1c1f892f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647108 |
On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 6:07:17 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > > For Odd > > from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141014114752.htm > > > > "Gwinn and his colleagues found that the images taken by RadioAstron > > contained small spots. "I was quite surprised to find that the effect of > > scattering produced images with small lumps in the overall smooth image," > > explained Gwinn. "We call these substructure. Some previous theories had > > predicted similar effects in the 1980s, and a quite controversial > > observation in the 1970s had hinted at their presence." > > > > Wrong again, Odd > > > > Read the article again, John. It says explicitly that nothing is emitted > from within the black hole. Read it! It's right there! > > The spots are associated with the material OUTSIDE the black hole. > > Good lord, there's an obvious reason you don't read anything more than a > paragraph long. And in case you cannot find it, here is the paragraph that makes this very clear: '"The theory and observations allow us to make statements about the interstellar gas responsible for the scattering, and about the emission region around the black hole," Johnson said. "It turns out that the size of that emission region is only 20 times the diameter of the event horizon as it would be seen from Earth. With additional observations, we can begin to understand the behavior in this extreme environment."' ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-23 16:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onksmk$167i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646974 |
On 8/23/17 3:54 PM, john wrote: > "The similarity principle (Galaxies<==>atoms) is tested and fails." > > Again- when, how, by whom.? No experimental evidence for disk-like structure of atoms. No experimental evidence for precession of galaxies. Let's start with that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 13:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onhcls$iel$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646814 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Okay, at each iteration, in your starship made of that gauge matter, you look > up and see galaxies stretching away forever, and you could go on forever > and it would still be that size of everything. The Black Hole is where >there is NO MATTER of your gauge because the gauge below is in a >vortex, and any matter that falls in gets shredded and shot back out. >It's a HOLE in our reality, though, so the name is good. But the gauge >below matter is "aether", and photons are waves in that aether, so when >they encounter the vortex, they are sucked in. Kook Babble, no matter what new words (gauge) you add to your word salad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 13:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onhd1h$iel$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646813 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Halton Arp saw pairs of Quasars that HAD BEEN the accretion discs >travelling away from their parent galaxy in exactly opposite directions Yeah, I can see that in the case of merging galaxies that their central black holes can interact in such a way they may go flying off. So what? >(entangled photons) What do entangled photons have anything to do with quasars?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 07:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <306436d5-061c-4222-a675-01a75ae398da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #646833 |
MM " Yeah, I can see that in the case of merging galaxies that their central black holes can interact in such a way they may go flying off. So what? " Boy, you're a BH savant, Michael!! "BHs interact and go flying off". Why don't you show us the equation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 15:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onhj0a$r5n$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #646839 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >Yeah, I can see that in the case of merging galaxies that their central >black holes can interact in such a way they may go flying off. So what? >" >Boy, you're a BH savant, Michael!! >"BHs interact and go flying off". >Why don't you show us the equation? F=GMm/r^2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 08:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <onhbc6$1msu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646806 |
On 8/21/17 9:09 PM, john wrote: > 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. > John -- Two observed points do not establish a pattern. Adding a fictional and imaginary third one does not solve this problem. John, as I said, you have not established ANY repeating pattern of agreed-upon observations that other people would recognize. It is therefore foolish to try to account for a pattern that does not exist. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-22 17:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <599ca90b$0$34679$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #646802 |
On 8/21/2017 9:18 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > 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. > Hey Odd, our own Archie has proved that the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is nothing but a single huge atom! And that establishes a repeating pattern from the very to to the very bottom. What more proof do you need? You need Banjo to to affirm it for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-21 21:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Take your own advice, Tom Roberts. |
| Message-ID | <599b8360$0$4509$c3e8da3$b280bf18@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #646796 |
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!
[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 | <ong0oe$1rpj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #646801 |
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!" -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web