Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #646926 > unrolled thread

Are space and time infinitely divisible?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 08:26 -0700
    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 10:34 -0500
      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 13:16 -0700
        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:30 -0500
          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-23 20:48 -0700
            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 06:55 -0700
            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:21 -0500
              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? alal65536@gmail.com - 2017-08-25 08:58 -0700
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:57 -0500
            Re: Nature is infinitely large/small; our knowledge is infinitely small. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:56 -0400
        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:37 -0700
          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-23 20:20 -0400
            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 19:18 -0700
              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 06:17 -0700
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 08:32 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 08:49 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 09:50 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:16 -0700
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 10:10 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:58 -0400
                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:11 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 06:05 -0700
            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 05:15 -0700
              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:49 -0400
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 16:13 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 19:28 -0400
                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 04:51 -0700
                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-25 18:16 -0400
                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 21:50 -0700
                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:55 -0400
                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 05:31 -0700
          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 06:35 -0700
            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:54 -0400
              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 16:39 -0700
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 20:20 -0400
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 04:14 -0700
                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-25 18:08 -0400
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 11:26 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:32 -0700
                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 14:45 -0700
                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:43 -0700
                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:46 -0700
                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:21 -0700
                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 14:57 -0700
                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:25 -0700
                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:21 -0500
                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:40 -0700
                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:45 -0400
                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 00:14 -0700
                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:23 -0500
                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:36 -0400
                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:41 -0700
                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:48 -0400
                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 15:59 -0700
                                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-08-29 16:08 -0700
                                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:14 -0700
                                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 08:43 -0700
                                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 16:52 -0700
                                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2017-09-01 12:53 -0700
                                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 20:16 -0700
                                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 21:08 -0700
                                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 23:46 -0700
                                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 00:13 -0700
                                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-02 00:28 -0700
                                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 01:39 -0700
                                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-02 07:51 -0700
                                                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:29 -0700
                                                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-03 11:18 -0700
                                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 11:15 -0500
                                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 23:47 -0700
                                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:09 -0400
                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 10:15 -0700
                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 12:09 -0500
                                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:24 -0400
                                  Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:54 -0700
                                    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 20:25 -0400
                                      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 07:02 -0700
                                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:27 -0500
                                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:29 -0500
                                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:45 -0700
                                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:39 -0400
                                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 21:21 -0700
                                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:50 -0400
                                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:51 -0700
                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:07 -0400
                        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:52 -0700
                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 14:06 -0700
                          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:38 -0700
                            Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 10:28 -0700
                              Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:11 -0700
                Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 21:33 -0500
      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-23 17:21 -0400
        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:28 -0700
          Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:45 -0500
    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 10:34 -0700
      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-23 22:42 -0700
    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 14:02 -0700
    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-23 17:19 -0400
      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 21:08 -0700
        Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:40 -0400
    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 10:34 -0700
      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-25 10:52 -0700
    Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:30 -0700
      Re: Are space and time infinitely divisible? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-08-28 14:16 -0700

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#647251

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:45:49 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:32:34 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:27:02 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:

<trim>

> > If matter is infinitely divisible, they will have to.
> 
> But matter is not infinitely divisible, as the Milliken
> experiment shows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just Google the string "quarks". There are many, not infinte, artcles.

A good starting point is Wikipedia, it states:

\begin{quarks quote} 
In 1968, deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear
Accelerator Center (SLAC) showed that the proton contained much
smaller, point-like objects and was therefore not an elementary
particle.[6][7][32] Physicists were reluctant to firmly identify these
objects with quarks at the time, instead calling them "partons"—a term
coined by Richard Feynman.[33][34][35] The objects that were observed
at SLAC would later be identified as up and down quarks as the other
flavors were discovered.[36] Nevertheless, "parton" remains in use as
a collective term for the constituents of hadrons (quarks, antiquarks,
and gluons).
\end{quarks quote}

Fine, here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

<trim>

> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> Sorry, but we are in the 21st century now.
> Please reset your calendar.
> 
>   Have a good day,
>     ed

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes... Enjo(y)!”   
Enjo(y)... Salute… Cheers... Open your M I N D… Time it is Is IS 3PM somePlace. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647672

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:45:49 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:32:34 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:27:02 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:54:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> > > > > On 8/24/2017 9:35 AM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > > > > > On Wednesday, August 23, 2017 at 7:37:19 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > > []
> > > > > >> Apart from Millikan's oil drop experiment, there is little to show from
> > > > > >> experimental evidence about the atomicity of matter.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The Millikan drop experiment is a measure of the fundamental
> > > > > > constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass.
> > > > 
> > > > Which does not mean that the electron can be bigger or
> > > > smaller than what it
> > > > is held to be, mass and charge wise.
> > > 
> > > Wrong. It means there is a smallest size.
> > 
> > Your own comment does not indicate that. You said that "experiment is a measure
> > of the fundamental constant ratio of electron charge to electron mass".
> > 
> > Don't you think you are contradicting yourself? I think this was the Sir JJ
> > Thomson experiment of bending the electrons in a CRT with a magnetic field,
> > to get the value of e/m. But e/m does not give e. You are confusing one with
> > the other.
> > 
> > As I remember they got discrete values of such readings and from the steps
> > involved they somehow managed to measure the mass of an electron in Millikan
> > oil drop experiment.
> > 
> > Hmm, just checked and I am correct, just see
> > 
> > https://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2002summer/PHY192/electron_charge_and_mass.pdf
> > 
> > relevant quote from that site:
> > ***
> > When the experimenter knows the density of the latex ball, the terminal velocity of the ball falling under the influence of gravity alone, and the charge on the plates of the Millikan apparatus, it is possible to find the force produced by the electric charge on the ball.  A series of observations will produce a group of terminal velocity values which are seen to be multiples of a lowest value.  From this data, it is possible to determine the elementary unit of charge.
> > ***
> 
> Exactly. There is a discrete unit, IOW a smallest unit.

A very dodgy experiment that.
Most likely, completely cooked, as it is very badly explained.
It is far below the standard of a convincing explanation of Nature, such as
Torricelli's barometer, or Galileo's telescope, or calculas.

THIS EXPERIMENT DOES NOT SHOW HOW TO FIND THE CHARGE ON A SINGLE ELECTRON.

What have "terminal velocity values" have to do with the charge on a single
electron?

So I cannot take the conclusions as correct.

> 
> > 
> > Well, if people are satisfied with that sort of experimentation, using gravity
> > and electricity to prove some point with sketchy details, I do not see why
> > they should object to my own open, clear experimentation with Lorenz force
> [spam deleted]
> 
> Because it is anything but a reproducible experiment.
> As I told you before, that would fail a school science fair.
> > 
> >   
> > > > All it means is that if ten electrons joined up to form one electron, then
> > > > it will have ten times the mass and charge.
> > > 
> > > yes, but they don't magically join. 
> > 
> > If matter is infinitely divisible, they will have to.
> 
> But matter is not infinitely divisible, as the Milliken
> experiment shows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> > Usually the electrons are bunched up, as in the case of static.
> 
> The electrons are held by clusters of molecules.
> They do not bunch up on their own.
> 
> > 
> > > > All we have found is an average which is held to be the only size/charge.
> > > 
> > > But the Millikan experiment does not stand alone.
> > > other experiments can show the unit of charge of an electron.
> > 
> > Name them. 
> 
> You just posted the link to one.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > That is an ASSUMPTION held to be FACT.
> > > > And we know what assumptions can lead us to.
> > > 
> > > These are facts shown by experiments.
> > 
> > Only one is shown. It is rather dodgy, going by my own exacting standards.
> 
> LOL! Your standards are anything but exacting!

They are. You racist bigots won't look at them, and never will but you do not
represent the whole world now, nor ever will in the future.
> 
> > 
> > > > > >> As for that experiment, well, some say it is dodgy.
> > > > > >> What is seen as an atom with an electron microscope could well be a blob
> > > > > >> of many atoms.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Brownian motion was shown by Einstein as proof of atomicity of matter.
> > > > > > MANY particle experiments demonstrate atomic nature of matter.
> > > > 
> > > > Hand-waving and throwing names does not prove
> > > > anything to the scientific mind.
> > > 
> > > Please show us the hand waving that Einstein did in his published,
> > > peer-reviewed, paper on Brownian motion.
> > 
> > Not all peer-reviewed are correct in every way, given the differences 
> > academics have over every matter. They only indicate one point of view. They
> > do not negate others.
> 
> That does not answer the question I asked.
> Where in his paper on Brownian motion did Einstein
>  perform a hand waving calculation?
> > 
> > > > Einstein was the biggest bungler in physics - his bungling in SR and GR are
> > > > stupendous. Probably the biggest bungler in the history of science, with the
> > > > most disastrous effects.
> > > 
> > > Go talk to PV. You are both stuck in 18th century thinking.
> > 
> > 19th century, which was the real time for scientific thinking, whereas 20th
> > century is the time for technology based upon 19th century science. Einstein
> > et al corrupted physics, which has to be fixed based upon the work shown in
> > my video films.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Arindam Banerjee
> 
> Sorry, but we are in the 21st century now.
> Please reset your calendar.
> 
>   Have a good day,
>     ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647208

- snip -

> > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could
> > be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions.
> 
> Look here:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)
> The article includes an image and a reference to a youtube video.
> (We know how you like youtube.)
> > 
> > In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided
> > as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state.
> > This may not be the case when it is solid.
> 
> Atoms are often measured individually when not a solid.
> Look up: mass spectrometer.

Again, you don't know if they cannot be broken up into smaller atoms.

> > > > And as a final example, many years ago, IBM was able to arrange
> > > > individual atoms to spell IBM at the atomic level. So it has gone
> > > > well beyond proof, to being practical engineering knowledge
> > > > and techniques.
> > 
> > They did not do it with gas atoms. They did it at the solid level. The same
> > IBM atom in solution could break up into smaller atoms. What they got was a 
> > clump of atoms the clumped at that set of external conditions.
> 
> But they then generated an image.

Of some clumps, but how does that mean it cannot be broken up into smaller
atoms?
> 
> As far as changing size in solution, name one experiment
> that even hints at a change such that an atom "could break
> up into smaller atoms."
> Preferred published in a standard scientific journal.

But standard scientific journals are based upon e=mcc nonsense, so they 
cannot be trusted.
We have to do fundamental experiments where every stage is make perfectly
clear.
Without this scientific method, we cannot proceed.
Scientific people must abandon the institutional processes which are now
corrupt.
They have to show exactly what the assumptions are, how the experiments are
done, how the assumptions lead to the results.
If the assumption is mass-energy equivalence, then the results must be
disregarded.
> 
> >  
> > > Don't bother to try to explain science to Banjo, Ed. He's a journalist 
> > > and will never understand any of it. You are simply wasting your time. 
> > > But then is it your time to waste.
> > 
> > And yours too, benj, but then your whole life is a waste.
> 
> Yes, benj, looks like I am wasting my time.
> > 
> > > >> Homeopathy suggests that effectively atoms get smaller and smaller with
> > > >> increased dilution.
> > > > 
> > > > Pointers to any experimental data/publications?
> > 
> > Homeopaths tell me that the more you dilute the medicine the more potent it is.
> > This was well-known to me from my childhood.
> > Believe it or not.
> 
> I'll accept such a thing when there is expermental evidence for it.
> I don't believe in facts, I accept facts that are demonstrated
> by data.

In other words you will accept whatever is published in a peer-reviewed
paper and ignore everything else.
In which case it is pointless to continue, for I might as well talk to a robot.

> > One relative said that this was the reason he thought homeopathy had to be fake.
> > For when you dilute it more and more there will be not a single atom left in
> > the solution so there will be no medicine at all.
> > Which is true, mathematically and if you take Avogadro's Number.
> > 
> > But if in solution, atoms become smaller and smaller then we have more
> > energetic atoms with greater dilutions.
> 
> stuff and nonsense.

Not if you hold that matter is infinitely divisible, and this is not a new
idea.
I am merely saying that the success of homeopathy indicates the infinite
divisibility of matter, or at any rate beyond that of modern thinking.
Dismissing what does not fit the standard current model is robotic.

> > 
> > And these energetic atoms could be very potent, as indeed homeopathy shows and
> > has shown for generations.
> 
> Show ONE experiment where this works!

It worked for me, just as it worked for all those who have benefited from
homeopathic medicine - their numbers are in the hundreds of millions.

> > I am assuming here that the concentration of medical atoms as numbers/cc 
> > remains constant with the dilutions.
> 
> Then you assume wrongly.

Maybe. I am not a blind dogmatist like those who merely follow those journals
that suit them.
However if matter is infinitely divisible then this is not an invalid
assumption.
I hope at least this much you can understand.

> How does that work when we can measure the concentration
> by the spectra. how does the same number of smaller atoms
> manage to produce the correct frequency of light, but
> the wrong number of photons? In fact produce the same
> number of photons as if the atoms stayed the same size
> but the number of atoms was reduced.

Homeopathy works in the dilution process. The medical atoms to divide must be in solution and that too in pure water. Such is the theory.
That is the way they prepare the medicine - concentration happens in the other
way, by dilution.

My theory about concentration was about solution, not of atoms in spectra. That
is different. In your example the atoms have not sub-divided.

It is also a theory, which means it is a conjecture and not a fact. This theory
of infinitely divisible matter is encouraged by Hubble finding that the
universe is likely to be of infinite size.

The constituent of the universe matter, that is atoms, is thus likely to be
infinitely small.

And divisibility that is infinite makes for that.
> 
> > > > The effects of medical compounds may not be linear with
> > > > their concentration, but that says nothing about
> > > > the molecular size. You are misunderstanding Homeopathy.
> > 
> > I am explaining what I have extrapolated from the workings of homeopathy, and
> > how homeopathic medicines are made. It is only natural for me to do so as an
> > original genius, and that too, the greatest of all time.
> > 
> Well, your genius cap is a little crooked.

Maybe, this is not my main work. I am conjecturing, not experimenting and 
analysing as I do in my own chosen fields of activity. As I said, I am
encouraged on these lines by the infinity of the universe, and the fact that
homeopathy has helped me a lot with plantar fasciitis, for which I need not
take a steroid injection. Thus, I owe homeopathy and this is repayment.
> 
> >  
> > > I already pointed this out. He just flings words about hoping that will 
> > > impress anyone actually dumber than he is. He hasn't a clue about what 
> > > Homeopathy is about.
> > 
> > Homeopathy is a cheap and effective alternative for the thirdworld, and so 
> > the parasites of the firstworld hate it as it cuts into their pharma profits.
> 
> Politics that has nothing to do with the Chemistry/Physics
> that we are discussing.

Gratuitous abuse from benj has more to do - I was responding to him.
> 
> > It has been very useful to me recently in curing my plantar fasciitis. I was
> > asked to take cortisone injections, but no need thanks to Homeopathy.
> > 
> One data point does not make a clear trend line.

Are you really so ignorant as not to know that homeopathy is very much around
in the world and is used by hundreds of millions - their acceptance should 
mean something so far as trend lines go. 

I have heard that HM the Queen of England believes in homeopathy. 
Perhaps it is not in vogue in US, but US is not the whole world, not yet anyway.

> []
> > 
> > > >> It could well be, that matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the
> > > >> soup filling the infinite universe.
> > > > 
> > > > Now you are leading to the idea of string theory.
> > > > IOW, there are no particles, only waves.
> > 
> > No, I am not into that kind of pseudo-scientific rubbish.
> 
> Ah, I suggest the one thing that MIGHT help support your
> idea and you reject that too. Interesting.

Why should I go in for some THEORY? I am an engineer and I go for practical
experiments, and the theory that fits the results of such experiments in the 
simplest and clearest ways are for me the theories that matter.

So as homeopathy works, the theory that matter is infinitely divisible appeals
to me.

The aether theory similarly appeals to me, as it explains radiation well, it
explains the photoelectric effect.

> > There is aether throughout the infinite universe, and that aether knots up
> > to form positive and negative charges in the form of matter.
> > 
> > Very simple, really.
> 
> Experimental evidence?
> Mathematical model?
> Anything besides your statement out of thin air?

Hubble shows an infinite universe.
Aether is needed to transport waves, for all waves need a medium.
Maxwell's equations are great math models.
Positive and negative charges exist, that attract and repel based upon 
polarity.
They can be used to explain everything from nuclear power to energy transport
in aether.
Check out IFE-8 for new insights in physics based upon my discovery of a new
formula liking mass and energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics

> > 
> > Will have to write more aphorisms, to get it all clear.
> 
> A peer reviewed journal article will be more convincing,
> either a theoretical proposal with suggestions of how to test
> your theory or an experimental paper with data supporting
> your idea. Lacking that, even a reference to someone else's
> published work that supports your idea.

No they won't accept my ideas. They have reduced physics to a religion with
Einstein as God. Anything against the e=mcc dogma they will reject. I have 
been told so much clearly by many people in the establishment. 

So there is no point in writing papers in journals. Been there, done that. They
will be ignored if they don't suit the biases.

Pentcho Valev writes about many scientists who do not accept e=mcc. I have to
go beyond journals and make a motor that violates the Newtonian laws. So I need
support for this work. Once this is done, there will be no more argument.

However the establishment has closed ranks and will not listen to rebel
scientists, who thus have no funding.

People who are dogmatic
and not scientific should heed what is truth that is presented in logical
arguments, youtube videos, and they should have that instinct of repeating
the experiments done in the youtube videos to find out the secrets of Nature.

I have tried to do that with my youtube videos, and it is up to the world to 
do the rest. I will certainly help all efforts to make a new motor as per
the designs in IFE-4 to IFE-7.

ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
> 
> Otherwise, all you have is words.

No, I have a beautiful set of 8 video films. You all can ignore them but they
are there. 
In the meantime, I will try as hard as I can to interest people in this work
and then see how we can get along to make a new motor to replace rockets and 
jet engines.
> > 
> > Still, those with  wits better than yours, will have grasped what I  mean from
> > such normal brilliant posts from mine, as this one.
> 
> I am but a humble person. I claim no genius skills or
> special knowledge. I only know what I have tested myself
> or read is respected sources. (PS usenet is not generally
> a respected source.)

Respected sources believe in e=mcc and that diminishes their prestige to far
below usenet standards.

Making a new motor that violates Newtonian physics will reduce their worth
to nothing, hence their reluctance to help my work and their victimisation of
those who refuse to accept their dogma.

> > > >> That is, there is no aether within electrons and protons, but outside them.
> > > >> Points to ponder...
> > > >> Cheers,
> > > >> Arindam Banerjee
> > > > 
> > > > Given that protons consist of quarks, You may want to
> > > > rephrase that "point to ponder".
> > 
> > Protons consist of smaller protons, like electrons consist of smaller electrons.
> 
> Now you are channeling John S. You are heading down a dead end path.
> Or more accurately
> you are in a maze of twisted passages, all the same.

I am merely stating an earlier theory that matter is infinitely divisible.
If atoms can become smaller atoms, by dilution with water, then electrons
and protons must get smaller.
In Nature, amoebas split, as do cells, into twos.
So why not atoms.
Just a theory.
> 
> Have a nice time pondering what I have said.
>   ed

Thanks, you have not been abusive like benj etc. Now you ponder about what I 
wrote, and if you really have any regard for science, go through my videos
about Lorenz force reaction.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647224

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:21:55 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> - snip -
> 
> > > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could
> > > be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions.
> > 
> > Look here:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)
> > The article includes an image and a reference to a youtube video.
> > (We know how you like youtube.)
> > > 
> > > In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided
> > > as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state.
> > > This may not be the case when it is solid.
> > 
> > Atoms are often measured individually when not a solid.
> > Look up: mass spectrometer.
> 

You say,
No one has seen a gas molecule or atom.
I pointed to IBM moving individual atoms, with an image of the atoms.

you say,
"they are the same size because they are frozen solid"
I mention the size can be measured when the atom is a gas.

you reply
> Again, you don't know if they cannot be broken up into smaller atoms.
But not scientific measurement has ever found differences in size
(well except for isotopes)

So time for your theory to put up or shut up:
How does the size always come up the same
in measurements done different ways, and
in many places all over the world, yet still
vary in size?

Tell us the conditions to test your hypothesis.

If you cannot at least do that, your hypothesis is dead.

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647503

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:53 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:21:55 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > - snip -
> > 
> > > > No one has seen a gas molecule or atom. As solid or in solution, an atom could
> > > > be a group of smaller atoms depending upon external conditions.
> > > 
> > > Look here:
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_(atoms)
> > > The article includes an image and a reference to a youtube video.
> > > (We know how you like youtube.)
> > > > 
> > > > In other words, in gaseous form the atom could become smaller being divided
> > > > as per external conditions. Maybe, reach the smallest possible atomic state.
> > > > This may not be the case when it is solid.
> > > 
> > > Atoms are often measured individually when not a solid.
> > > Look up: mass spectrometer.
> > 
> 
> You say,
> No one has seen a gas molecule or atom.
> I pointed to IBM moving individual atoms, with an image of the atoms.

Not a gas molecule.
> 
> you say,
> "they are the same size because they are frozen solid"
> I mention the size can be measured when the atom is a gas.

Can you use an electron microscope to see a gas molecule?
Hint: a gas molecule moves, so it cannot be seen by any kind of microscope
> 
> you reply
> > Again, you don't know if they cannot be broken up into smaller atoms.
> But not scientific measurement has ever found differences in size
> (well except for isotopes)

Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.

Fatter protons, fatter electrons.

I have now before me the book "Tables of physical and chemical constants" by Kaye and Laby.

I have opened the table of "the chemical elements"
Most elemnents are not like Oxygen which has an atomic mass number of 16 which
is the reference perhaps as it is in bold.
They have fractions like Neon at 20.183, Cadmimum at 112.41, Potassium at
39.1 and so on.

Isn't "discovering" isotopes a convenient way of denying that the atomic mass
is the average mass of the atom in gaseous or otherwise moving form?

The isotope could be the heavier or lighter version of the elemental stable atom.

> So time for your theory to put up or shut up:

I am not really keen about this theory as it is not my work.
It simple explains things like homeopathy.
It would appear then that atoms nicely split up in solution or when moving
just to keep the concentration constant.

How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?

Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.


> How does the size always come up the same
> in measurements done different ways, and
> in many places all over the world, yet still
> vary in size?

The average is constant and that is found.
You cannot find the size of a single atom in movement.
What you see under a  microscope could be a clump of atoms.
It could be a singular atom, but how can one be sure?

When you are talking averages, you are talking about distributions.
So if the mode is peaked in the distribution, like all atoms have the same
atomic mass, then yes they have the same size.
But the atomic mass is rarely integer.
One could argue that there is a spread in atomic mass, and from that conjecture
that atoms could vary in mass.
And from that extrapolate to their division or union in solution, as a 
function of concentration.

If one proton or one electron is NOT equally big as another proton or electron,
then natural processes for their union and divison based upon external circs.
cannot be discounted.

> Tell us the conditions to test your hypothesis.

See if you can measure the size of a gas molecule.
The same IBM atom heat up and make it fly in space.
The see if it is the same size when it was frozen.

Make McGinn happy, invest in his thoughts about water as well.
See if the water vapour molecule is as big as an ice molecule.
> 
> If you cannot at least do that, your hypothesis is dead.

Not so fast. The theory of matter divisibility to nothing, or rather to 
aetheric dimensions is not new at all.
It relates to geometry in a way as I pointed out in another thread.
Infinitude of points make a straight line.
Thus, an infinity of aether-points makes for a speck of matter.

Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
> 
> ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647540

On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.
> 
> Fatter protons, fatter electrons.

Well, there's the business of neutrons accounting for the different mass.

Idiot. Flaming idiot. Self-immolating, flaming idiot.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647667

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:21:32 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.
> > 
> > Fatter protons, fatter electrons.
> 
> Well, there's the business of neutrons accounting for the different mass.

It is the notion of neutrons.
> 
> Idiot. Flaming idiot. Self-immolating, flaming idiot.

Name-calling is the last resort of the pighead.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647689

On 8/28/2017 6:40 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:21:32 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.
>>>
>>> Fatter protons, fatter electrons.
>>
>> Well, there's the business of neutrons accounting for the different mass.
> 
> It is the notion of neutrons.
>>
>> Idiot. Flaming idiot. Self-immolating, flaming idiot.
> 
> Name-calling is the last resort of the pighead.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647718

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:45:47 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 8/28/2017 6:40 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:21:32 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> Isotopes can be seen as the heavier version of the same element.
> >>>
> >>> Fatter protons, fatter electrons.
> >>
> >> Well, there's the business of neutrons accounting for the different mass.
> > 
> > It is the notion of neutrons.
> >>
> >> Idiot. Flaming idiot. Self-immolating, flaming idiot.
> > 
> > Name-calling is the last resort of the pighead.
> 
> Pot. Kettle. Black.

benj, you are beyond all help. May all pity you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647541

On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?

Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?

> 
> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.

Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so 
ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your 
stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they 
are.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647635

On 8/28/2017 9:23 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not 
>> divide into two?
> 
> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> 
>>
>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally 
>> ignorant. This
>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any 
>> discussion group.
> 
> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so 
> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your 
> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they 
> are.
> 
> 
Good one Odd! This time you are right on the money as Bert would say!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647669

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> 
> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> 
> > 
> > Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> > is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> 
> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so 
> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your 
> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they 
> are.

You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647690

On 8/28/2017 6:41 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
>>
>> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
>>
>>>
>>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
>>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
>>
>> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
>> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
>> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
>> are.
> 
> You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.

And if you shut up what would we all do for entertainment?
Go study rock lyrics for lessons on life like Looperji?

Never leave us banjo. WE love you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647797

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:48:28 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> On 8/28/2017 6:41 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> >>
> >> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> >>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> >>
> >> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> >> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> >> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
> >> are.
> > 
> > You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> 
> And if you shut up what would we all do for entertainment?
> Go study rock lyrics for lessons on life like Looperji?
> 
> Never leave us banjo. WE love you.

I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy.
That's nice. I appreciate that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647800

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:48:28 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> > On 8/28/2017 6:41 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > >>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> > >>
> > >> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> > >>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> > >>
> > >> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> > >> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> > >> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
> > >> are.
> > > 
> > > You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> > 
> > And if you shut up what would we all do for entertainment?
> > Go study rock lyrics for lessons on life like Looperji?
> > 
> > Never leave us banjo. WE love you.
> 
> I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
> considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy.
> That's nice. I appreciate that.


Yes, kind of nice to keep everything in its place, and everyone in his place.

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647816

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:08:15 AM UTC+10, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:48:28 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> > > On 8/28/2017 6:41 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > >>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> > > >>
> > > >> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> > > >>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> > > >> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> > > >> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
> > > >> are.
> > > > 
> > > > You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> > > 
> > > And if you shut up what would we all do for entertainment?
> > > Go study rock lyrics for lessons on life like Looperji?
> > > 
> > > Never leave us banjo. WE love you.
> > 
> > I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
> > considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy.
> > That's nice. I appreciate that.
> 
> 
> Yes, kind of nice to keep everything in its place, and everyone in his place.
> 
> Double-A

Yes, as in Bengali we say "aachi shukhay haasshomukhay dukkho amar nai" or "I am
in peace with a smiling face as I have no grief".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647870

Ari
"- show quoted text -
I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy. 
That's nice. I appreciate that. "

What about the untouchables?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#647932

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 1:43:19 AM UTC+10, john wrote:
> Ari
> "- show quoted text -
> I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
> considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy. 
> That's nice. I appreciate that. "
> 
> What about the untouchables?

Where are they?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648168

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:14:48 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:08:15 AM UTC+10, Double-A wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:48:28 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> > > > On 8/28/2017 6:41 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > >> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > >>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> > > > >>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> > > > >> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> > > > >> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
> > > > >> are.
> > > > > 
> > > > > You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> > > > 
> > > > And if you shut up what would we all do for entertainment?
> > > > Go study rock lyrics for lessons on life like Looperji?
> > > > 
> > > > Never leave us banjo. WE love you.
> > > 
> > > I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
> > > considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy.
> > > That's nice. I appreciate that.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, kind of nice to keep everything in its place, and everyone in his place.
> > 
> > Double-A
> 
> Yes, as in Bengali we say "aachi shukhay haasshomukhay dukkho amar nai" or "I am
> in peace with a smiling face as I have no grief".


Sounds like the Asian way of saying, "Don't worry, be happy!"

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#648264

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 4:08:15 PM UTC-7, Double-A wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:48:28 AM UTC+10, benj wrote:
> > > On 8/28/2017 6:41 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:23:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >> On 8/27/17 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > > >>> How can life cells split, duplicate, if each atom in the cell does not divide into two?
> > > >>
> > > >> Um, how about the cell incorporating additional atoms as part of growth?
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Of course this is a matter of biology, about which I am totally ignorant. This
> > > >>> is not my field but one can put in one's stray thoughts in any discussion group.
> > > >>
> > > >> Well, Arindam, in this you are like Archimedes Plutonium, so
> > > >> ego-possessed and so hungry for attention that you believe that your
> > > >> stray thoughts are jewels, rather than the festering corn cobs that they
> > > >> are.
> > > > 
> > > > You racists and bigots want me to shut up. Nothing new here.
> > > 
> > > And if you shut up what would we all do for entertainment?
> > > Go study rock lyrics for lessons on life like Looperji?
> > > 
> > > Never leave us banjo. WE love you.
> > 
> > I love everyone, even the racists and bigots. In their way, they do good as 
> > considering themselves superior they work hard to keep things neat and tidy.
> > That's nice. I appreciate that.
> 
> 
> Yes, kind of nice to keep everything in its place, and everyone in his place.
> 
> Double-A

Time and space begs this question."What came first?"  TreBert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web