Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647011 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-23 16:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-25 21:18 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 16:40 -0700
Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-23 19:42 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 05:07 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 17:47 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-24 15:50 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-24 19:35 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 01:07 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 11:32 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 04:39 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:06 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 05:24 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 08:21 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 06:13 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 09:00 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 12:53 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 15:25 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:36 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 15:47 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-08-26 15:42 +0200
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:33 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 15:49 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 06:43 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:34 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:52 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 03:38 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:48 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:52 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 03:08 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 03:06 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:26 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 14:38 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 17:32 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:38 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:20 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 19:03 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 22:54 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 21:53 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 10:50 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:33 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:49 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:59 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 17:13 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:42 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 19:09 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 22:28 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 15:47 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 18:56 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 21:14 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 21:11 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 19:21 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-30 23:26 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-31 15:04 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 18:50 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 22:44 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 03:00 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-01 12:55 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 12:02 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:17 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 15:51 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:36 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:56 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:25 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 00:24 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:40 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 04:34 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:36 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 10:58 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 19:42 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 15:33 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 18:24 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 11:20 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-30 19:24 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:26 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 21:15 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 22:40 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 04:43 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:55 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 03:13 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 20:30 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:33 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 03:00 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:07 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:13 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:59 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 11:10 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 16:29 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 12:34 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:16 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:26 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 21:36 -0500
Re: Usenet is a sea of spam, 37 years deep, with HUNDREDS of duplicates. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:49 -0700
Re: Usenet is a sea of spam, 37 years deep, with HUNDREDS of duplicates. Doomsdrzej <me@home.is> - 2017-09-05 11:21 +0000
Re: Usenet is a sea of spam, 37 years deep, with HUNDREDS of duplicates. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-05 15:11 +0200
Re: Usenet is a sea of spam, 37 years deep, with HUNDREDS of duplicates. Doomsdrzej <me@home.is> - 2017-09-05 14:18 +0000
Re: Usenet is a sea of spam, 37 years deep, with HUNDREDS of duplicates. Poutnik <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2017-09-06 11:21 +0200
Re: Usenet is a sea of spam, 37 years deep, with HUNDREDS of duplicates. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-09-05 09:54 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:55 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:46 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 17:58 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:48 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 02:18 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:49 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:47 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:27 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 05:12 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 04:38 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 13:33 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 15:52 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-25 18:15 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 21:53 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:56 -0400
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 05:14 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:53 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 03:27 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 12:21 +0000
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 06:16 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 07:26 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:45 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 15:59 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 17:46 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:35 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:45 -0500
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:02 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-01 19:56 -0700
Re: Matter is like knots in the hair of aether as the soup filling the infinite universe Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 21:18 -0500
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onq2hc$10to$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647210 |
On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >> Ari >> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but just smaller. Can you explain? > > I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. > > You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. > > You take 1 cc of the solution. > > In which case you have .001X atoms in it. > > When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply > so that you have X atoms there. > > But each is now one thousand times smaller. > > Just a theory. A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. > > Now, look at things the other way around. > > When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. > > In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united > to be about to form a crystal. > > Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course > made up of smaller atoms. > > I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits > into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going > by our reckoning of the size of the atom. > > I hope I have made myself clear. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c4ee529a-5d69-4de2-a402-b3dc61b43966@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647214 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > >> Ari > >> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but just smaller. Can you explain? > > > > I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. > > > > You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. > > > > You take 1 cc of the solution. > > > > In which case you have .001X atoms in it. > > > > When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply > > so that you have X atoms there. > > > > But each is now one thousand times smaller. > > > > Just a theory. > > A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish > itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what > you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. It is much better than the theory of relativity which when proposed was as much bunkum as it is today. SR predicted nothing. It still predicts nothing as it is bullshit but it is the most highly regarded theory in modern physics. A theory is not just about predicting. It is also about EXPLAINING. The theory of atom multiplication in solution explains homeopathy beautifully. A theory is based upon natural processes. The theory of atom multiplying in solution relates to cell splitting. If cells can split, so can atoms in solution. > > Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental > results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. > > > > > Now, look at things the other way around. > > > > When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. > > > > In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united > > to be about to form a crystal. > > > > Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course > > made up of smaller atoms. > > > > I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits > > into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going > > by our reckoning of the size of the atom. > > > > I hope I have made myself clear. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 14:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ons0ub$4ek$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647299 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>> Ari >>>> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, >>>> then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but >>>> just smaller. Can you explain? >>> >>> I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. >>> >>> You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. >>> >>> You take 1 cc of the solution. >>> >>> In which case you have .001X atoms in it. >>> >>> When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply >>> so that you have X atoms there. >>> >>> But each is now one thousand times smaller. >>> >>> Just a theory. >> >> A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish >> itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what >> you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. > > It is much better than the theory of relativity which when proposed was as > much bunkum as it is today. SR predicted nothing. It still predicts nothing > as it is bullshit but it is the most highly regarded theory in modern physics. Well, unfortunately, a lot of experimental evidence in full agreement with firm predictions of relativity can't be denied with any credibility. As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is a must. > > A theory is not just about predicting. It is also about EXPLAINING. The theory > of atom multiplication in solution explains homeopathy beautifully. > > A theory is based upon natural processes. The theory of atom multiplying in > solution relates to cell splitting. If cells can split, so can atoms in > solution. >> >> Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental >> results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. >> >>> >>> Now, look at things the other way around. >>> >>> When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. >>> >>> In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united >>> to be about to form a crystal. >>> >>> Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course >>> made up of smaller atoms. >>> >>> I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits >>> into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going >>> by our reckoning of the size of the atom. >>> >>> I hope I have made myself clear. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Arindam Banerjee >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 10:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ons5fa$cr1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647303 |
On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>> Ari >>>>> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, >>>>> then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but >>>>> just smaller. Can you explain? >>>> >>>> I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. >>>> >>>> You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. >>>> >>>> You take 1 cc of the solution. >>>> >>>> In which case you have .001X atoms in it. >>>> >>>> When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply >>>> so that you have X atoms there. >>>> >>>> But each is now one thousand times smaller. >>>> >>>> Just a theory. >>> >>> A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish >>> itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what >>> you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. >> >> It is much better than the theory of relativity which when proposed was as >> much bunkum as it is today. SR predicted nothing. It still predicts nothing >> as it is bullshit but it is the most highly regarded theory in modern physics. > > Well, unfortunately, a lot of experimental evidence in full agreement with > firm predictions of relativity can't be denied with any credibility. > > As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > a must. Let me explain something about thinking like a scientist. A scientist does not decide, ahead of experimental data, whether a logically consistent theory is bunk or true. A scientist waits until there is a comparison of CORROBORATED experimental data against unique predictions of the theory. Then and only then does a scientist decide whether the theory is sound or not. A crank, on the other hand, decides on the validity of a theory prior to comparison with experimental evidence. If the crank feels a theory is bunk, then all experimental data that appears to support the theory is then condemned as being faked or misinterpreted. If the crank feels a theory is correct, then ANY positive experimental data, corroborated or not, is considered proof of the theory. I think it's pretty clear that Arindam is a crank, not a scientist. > >> >> A theory is not just about predicting. It is also about EXPLAINING. The theory >> of atom multiplication in solution explains homeopathy beautifully. >> >> A theory is based upon natural processes. The theory of atom multiplying in >> solution relates to cell splitting. If cells can split, so can atoms in >> solution. >>> >>> Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental >>> results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. >>> >>>> >>>> Now, look at things the other way around. >>>> >>>> When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. >>>> >>>> In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united >>>> to be about to form a crystal. >>>> >>>> Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course >>>> made up of smaller atoms. >>>> >>>> I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits >>>> into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going >>>> by our reckoning of the size of the atom. >>>> >>>> I hope I have made myself clear. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 03:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3de3d3d7-5b97-4e67-a948-b22a3b998a73@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647307 |
On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>> Ari > >>>>> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, > >>>>> then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but > >>>>> just smaller. Can you explain? > >>>> > >>>> I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. > >>>> > >>>> You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. > >>>> > >>>> You take 1 cc of the solution. > >>>> > >>>> In which case you have .001X atoms in it. > >>>> > >>>> When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply > >>>> so that you have X atoms there. > >>>> > >>>> But each is now one thousand times smaller. > >>>> > >>>> Just a theory. > >>> > >>> A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish > >>> itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what > >>> you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. > >> > >> It is much better than the theory of relativity which when proposed was as > >> much bunkum as it is today. SR predicted nothing. It still predicts nothing > >> as it is bullshit but it is the most highly regarded theory in modern physics. > > > > Well, unfortunately, a lot of experimental evidence in full agreement with > > firm predictions of relativity can't be denied with any credibility. Rubbish. Pentcho Valev provides daily evidence of SR being absolute bunkum. I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the speed of the emitter. This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. So only dishonest people can support SR. Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. > > > > As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > > a must. > > Let me explain something about thinking like a scientist. > A scientist does not decide, ahead of experimental data, whether a > logically consistent theory is bunk or true. You don't know the first thing about science. Scientific knowledge is always provisional. When a logically consistent theory is proven true it is no longer a theory It is a fact. Like the Earth is round and not flat. Like the Lorenz force not having a reaction, as I found. It is perfectly possible for not just a scientist but for any person to make a theory, scientific or otherwise. A scientist has the capacity to check out the plausibility of the theory with scientific methods. The pseudoscientists are those who instead of using scientific methods to tackle a theory instead resort to political tactics, like ad hom attack, name-calling, bullshitting, ignoring evidence, promoting lies, using media to promote their views, using academia to teach their lies, etc. And there are so many of them Cheers, Arindam Banerjee A scientist waits until > there is a comparison of CORROBORATED experimental data against unique > predictions of the theory. Then and only then does a scientist decide > whether the theory is sound or not. > > A crank, on the other hand, decides on the validity of a theory prior to > comparison with experimental evidence. If the crank feels a theory is > bunk, then all experimental data that appears to support the theory is > then condemned as being faked or misinterpreted. If the crank feels a > theory is correct, then ANY positive experimental data, corroborated or > not, is considered proof of the theory. I proposed a theory. Anyone can do that. > > I think it's pretty clear that Arindam is a crank, not a scientist. I am the greatest genius of all time. Cowardly nameless mediocrities like this Odd entity need to pull me down, a > > > > >> > >> A theory is not just about predicting. It is also about EXPLAINING. The theory > >> of atom multiplication in solution explains homeopathy beautifully. > >> > >> A theory is based upon natural processes. The theory of atom multiplying in > >> solution relates to cell splitting. If cells can split, so can atoms in > >> solution. > >>> > >>> Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental > >>> results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Now, look at things the other way around. > >>>> > >>>> When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. > >>>> > >>>> In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united > >>>> to be about to form a crystal. > >>>> > >>>> Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course > >>>> made up of smaller atoms. > >>>> > >>>> I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits > >>>> into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going > >>>> by our reckoning of the size of the atom. > >>>> > >>>> I hope I have made myself clear. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers, > >>>> Arindam Banerjee > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onveno$179j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647411 |
On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>> Ari >>>>>>> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, >>>>>>> then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but >>>>>>> just smaller. Can you explain? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. >>>>>> >>>>>> You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. >>>>>> >>>>>> You take 1 cc of the solution. >>>>>> >>>>>> In which case you have .001X atoms in it. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply >>>>>> so that you have X atoms there. >>>>>> >>>>>> But each is now one thousand times smaller. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a theory. >>>>> >>>>> A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish >>>>> itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what >>>>> you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. >>>> >>>> It is much better than the theory of relativity which when proposed was as >>>> much bunkum as it is today. SR predicted nothing. It still predicts nothing >>>> as it is bullshit but it is the most highly regarded theory in modern physics. >>> >>> Well, unfortunately, a lot of experimental evidence in full agreement with >>> firm predictions of relativity can't be denied with any credibility. > > Rubbish. Pentcho Valev provides daily evidence of SR being absolute bunkum. Pentcho Valev does not read the articles he quotes. They usually say the opposite of what he extracts. > I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the speed of the > emitter. > This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. > So only dishonest people can support SR. > Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. > There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a positron. The final mass is larger than the sum of 2 electron masses. Explain. > >>> >>> As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is >>> a must. >> >> Let me explain something about thinking like a scientist. >> A scientist does not decide, ahead of experimental data, whether a >> logically consistent theory is bunk or true. > > You don't know the first thing about science. > Scientific knowledge is always provisional. > When a logically consistent theory is proven true it is no longer a theory > It is a fact. A theory is never proven true. > Like the Earth is round and not flat. That is not a theory, that is an OBSERVATION. Do you know the difference between a theory and an observation? > Like the Lorenz force not having a reaction, as I found. > > It is perfectly possible for not just a scientist but for any person to make > a theory, scientific or otherwise. Not if it doesn't meet the criteria of what a scientific theory must contain. I will point out that your evaluation of relativity is not based on experimental evidence. It is based on whether you believe it or not, and any experimental evidence in favor of it, you dismiss. > A scientist has the capacity to check out the plausibility of the theory with > scientific methods. > > The pseudoscientists are those who instead of using scientific methods to > tackle a theory instead resort to political tactics, like ad hom attack, > name-calling, bullshitting, ignoring evidence, promoting lies, using media to > promote their views, using academia to teach their lies, etc. > > And there are so many of them > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > A scientist waits until >> there is a comparison of CORROBORATED experimental data against unique >> predictions of the theory. Then and only then does a scientist decide >> whether the theory is sound or not. >> >> A crank, on the other hand, decides on the validity of a theory prior to >> comparison with experimental evidence. If the crank feels a theory is >> bunk, then all experimental data that appears to support the theory is >> then condemned as being faked or misinterpreted. If the crank feels a >> theory is correct, then ANY positive experimental data, corroborated or >> not, is considered proof of the theory. > > I proposed a theory. Anyone can do that. >> >> I think it's pretty clear that Arindam is a crank, not a scientist. > > I am the greatest genius of all time. Cowardly nameless mediocrities like > this Odd entity need to pull me down, a >> >>> >>>> >>>> A theory is not just about predicting. It is also about EXPLAINING. The theory >>>> of atom multiplication in solution explains homeopathy beautifully. >>>> >>>> A theory is based upon natural processes. The theory of atom multiplying in >>>> solution relates to cell splitting. If cells can split, so can atoms in >>>> solution. >>>>> >>>>> Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental >>>>> results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, look at things the other way around. >>>>>> >>>>>> When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. >>>>>> >>>>>> In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united >>>>>> to be about to form a crystal. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course >>>>>> made up of smaller atoms. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits >>>>>> into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going >>>>>> by our reckoning of the size of the atom. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope I have made myself clear. >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 17:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8547b0aa-4942-44ca-975e-60ddd9ac9698@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647478 |
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>>>> Ari > >>>>>>> I fail to understand how you can have X atoms in a quantity of water, > >>>>>>> then dilute it by 10, and still have X atoms in all 10 containers, but > >>>>>>> just smaller. Can you explain? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am saying that you have pure water in 10 containers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You have 1 oontainer with X atoms in say 1000cc. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You take 1 cc of the solution. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In which case you have .001X atoms in it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When you put 0.001X atoms in one of the 10 containers the numbers multiply > >>>>>> so that you have X atoms there. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But each is now one thousand times smaller. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just a theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> A theory makes testable quantitative predictions which distinguish > >>>>> itself from other competing theories. You do not have that yet, so what > >>>>> you have is a germ of an idea, not a theory. > >>>> > >>>> It is much better than the theory of relativity which when proposed was as > >>>> much bunkum as it is today. SR predicted nothing. It still predicts nothing > >>>> as it is bullshit but it is the most highly regarded theory in modern physics. > >>> > >>> Well, unfortunately, a lot of experimental evidence in full agreement with > >>> firm predictions of relativity can't be denied with any credibility. > > > > Rubbish. Pentcho Valev provides daily evidence of SR being absolute bunkum. > > Pentcho Valev does not read the articles he quotes. They usually say the > opposite of what he extracts. > > > I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the speed of the > > emitter. > > This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. > > So only dishonest people can support SR. > > Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. > > There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. > > There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a > positron. A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > The final mass is larger than the sum of 2 electron masses. > Explain. One cannot explain imaginary processes in a scientific way. > > > > >>> > >>> As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > >>> a must. > >> > >> Let me explain something about thinking like a scientist. > >> A scientist does not decide, ahead of experimental data, whether a > >> logically consistent theory is bunk or true. > > > > You don't know the first thing about science. > > Scientific knowledge is always provisional. > > When a logically consistent theory is proven true it is no longer a theory > > It is a fact. > > A theory is never proven true. > > > Like the Earth is round and not flat. > > That is not a theory, that is an OBSERVATION. Do you know the difference > between a theory and an observation? > > > Like the Lorenz force not having a reaction, as I found. > > > > It is perfectly possible for not just a scientist but for any person to make > > a theory, scientific or otherwise. > > Not if it doesn't meet the criteria of what a scientific theory must > contain. > > I will point out that your evaluation of relativity is not based on > experimental evidence. It is based on whether you believe it or not, and > any experimental evidence in favor of it, you dismiss. > > > A scientist has the capacity to check out the plausibility of the theory with > > scientific methods. > > > > The pseudoscientists are those who instead of using scientific methods to > > tackle a theory instead resort to political tactics, like ad hom attack, > > name-calling, bullshitting, ignoring evidence, promoting lies, using media to > > promote their views, using academia to teach their lies, etc. > > > > And there are so many of them > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > A scientist waits until > >> there is a comparison of CORROBORATED experimental data against unique > >> predictions of the theory. Then and only then does a scientist decide > >> whether the theory is sound or not. > >> > >> A crank, on the other hand, decides on the validity of a theory prior to > >> comparison with experimental evidence. If the crank feels a theory is > >> bunk, then all experimental data that appears to support the theory is > >> then condemned as being faked or misinterpreted. If the crank feels a > >> theory is correct, then ANY positive experimental data, corroborated or > >> not, is considered proof of the theory. > > > > I proposed a theory. Anyone can do that. > >> > >> I think it's pretty clear that Arindam is a crank, not a scientist. > > > > I am the greatest genius of all time. Cowardly nameless mediocrities like > > this Odd entity need to pull me down, a > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> A theory is not just about predicting. It is also about EXPLAINING. The theory > >>>> of atom multiplication in solution explains homeopathy beautifully. > >>>> > >>>> A theory is based upon natural processes. The theory of atom multiplying in > >>>> solution relates to cell splitting. If cells can split, so can atoms in > >>>> solution. > >>>>> > >>>>> Furthermore, as I've pointed out, there are dozens of experimental > >>>>> results, many dating from BEFORE Einstein, that rule this idea out. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Now, look at things the other way around. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When a solution is supersaturated the solid comes out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In a supersaturated solution it indicates that very many atoms have united > >>>>>> to be about to form a crystal. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thus atoms do unite to form effectively a large multi-atom which is of course > >>>>>> made up of smaller atoms. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am only conjecturing the reverse scenario, where first the multi-atom splits > >>>>>> into smaller multi-atoms and when kept on it becomes multi sub-atoms going > >>>>>> by our reckoning of the size of the atom. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I hope I have made myself clear. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 03:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oo01fk$est$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #647506 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: >On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> > Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. >> > There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >> >> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >> positron. >A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. Tell us how a PET scanner, such as the one at the nearest large hospital, works. Also what the "P" in the name "PET scanner" stands for. On the other hand, don't bother.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 03:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03eb84db-141e-4f7f-a46d-2acc7462fda1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647517 |
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:08:42 PM UTC+10, Michael Moroney wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> writes: > > >On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> > Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. > >> > There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. > >> > >> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a > >> positron. > > >A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > > Tell us how a PET scanner, such as the one at the nearest large > hospital, works. Also what the "P" in the name "PET scanner" stands for. > > On the other hand, don't bother. I won't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 08:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo15mt$1oru$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647506 |
On 8/27/17 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >> >> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >> positron. > > A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > >> The final mass is larger than the sum of 2 electron masses. >> Explain. > > One cannot explain imaginary processes in a scientific way. Denial of CORROBORATED experimental facts is the hallmark of a crank, not the hallmark of a scientist. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 14:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo1rgo$vgc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647506 |
On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>>>> Ari >> >>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the speed of the >>> emitter. >>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. >>> So only dishonest people can support SR. >>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. >>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >> >> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >> positron. > > A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 years ago. http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers almost at bottom of page
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a48bf8$0$54149$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647621 |
On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Ari > >>> >>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the >>>> speed of the >>>> emitter. >>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. >>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. >>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. >>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >>> >>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >>> positron. >> >> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > > > nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 > years ago. > > http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers > > > almost at bottom of page Known 84 years ago everywhere but India.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 15:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e64d317-83e4-45ce-9a8f-79291c2de42f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647657 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:32:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: > > On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Ari > > > >>> > >>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the > >>>> speed of the > >>>> emitter. > >>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. > >>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. > >>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. > >>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. > >>> > >>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a > >>> positron. > >> > >> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > > > > > > nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 > > years ago. > > > > http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers > > > > > > almost at bottom of page > > > Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. Oh, we were and are brainwashed all right by the superiority of Western science. I was much more impressed by the thoughts and experiments of da Vinci, Newton, Galileo, Gauss, Lavoisier, Galvani, Volta, Faraday, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, Heaviside, Tesla, JC Bose, Marconi, Curie than I am of the bad lot of Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Hawking and their supporters following e=mcc physics. The former presented their work simply, clearly, logically, and were as a result completely understandable. How brilliantly Torricelli demonstrated the reality of atmospheric pressure with his water barometer! How wonderful was the demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres to show the power of air pressure! Maxwell's great work related electrical constants to the speed of light, and the results from force experiments matched with those to measure light speed! Newton's brilliance was incredible - his thrust was on geometry and how maths modelling could predict the real world. The true father of engineering! da Vinci made a clean distinction between science and theology - all knowledge from science had to be provisional. It is this line that I adore, and follow, using their rigid methods. As opposed to being mendacious and posturing imaginative blowhards of the Einstein fashion, corrupting science by hand-waving, twisting, negating, ignoring... and always relying upon the power of money to corrupt the media, politicians and the academia. Sad. There is a balance in the universe, so there is bad and there is good. The bads have had it good for a long time now, but if the energies of Pentcho Valev continue and proliferate, there may be hope for the real physics to emerge from the awesome piles of bullshit. Let us see. "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 21:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a4c15d$0$31221$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647665 |
On 8/28/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:32:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ari >>> >>>>> >>>>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the >>>>>> speed of the >>>>>> emitter. >>>>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. >>>>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. >>>>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. >>>>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >>>>> >>>>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >>>>> positron. >>>> >>>> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. >>> >>> >>> nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 >>> years ago. >>> >>> http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers >>> >>> >>> almost at bottom of page >> >> >> Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. > > Oh, we were and are brainwashed all right by the superiority of Western science. > > I was much more impressed by the thoughts and experiments of da Vinci, Newton, > Galileo, Gauss, Lavoisier, Galvani, Volta, Faraday, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, > Heaviside, Tesla, JC Bose, Marconi, Curie than I am of the bad lot of > Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Hawking and their supporters following e=mcc > physics. Bose was an Indian, dummy. > The former presented their work simply, clearly, logically, and were as a result > completely understandable. How brilliantly Torricelli demonstrated the reality > of atmospheric pressure with his water barometer! How wonderful was the > demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres to show the power of air pressure! > Maxwell's great work related electrical constants to the speed of light, and > the results from force experiments matched with those to measure light speed! > Newton's brilliance was incredible - his thrust was on geometry and how maths > modelling could predict the real world. The true father of engineering! da Vinci > made a clean distinction between science and theology - all knowledge from > science had to be provisional. Yeah, but he was gay. Figures for a Westerner. > It is this line that I adore, and follow, using their rigid methods. As opposed > to being mendacious and posturing imaginative blowhards of the Einstein fashion, > corrupting science by hand-waving, twisting, negating, ignoring... and always > relying upon the power of money to corrupt the media, politicians and the > academia. Sad. Yeah, I saw the video of you amazing perpetual motion pendulum experiment. Fer sure no relying on power of money, media, politicians or academia there! You da man! > There is a balance in the universe, so there is bad and there is good. The bads > have had it good for a long time now, but if the energies of Pentcho Valev > continue and proliferate, there may be hope for the real physics to emerge from > the awesome piles of bullshit. Wait a minute. Pancho hates Einstein as much as you do? Why aren't you working together to smash fake science? I don't get it. > Let us see. > > "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! Well, now, Banjo. THAT is the first natural law so far that you've actually managed to get correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 19:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a1b1821-b674-474c-bd56-0c62abb46b72@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647682 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:20:33 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/28/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:32:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: > >>> On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ari > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the > >>>>>> speed of the > >>>>>> emitter. > >>>>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. > >>>>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. > >>>>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. > >>>>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. > >>>>> > >>>>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a > >>>>> positron. > >>>> > >>>> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > >>> > >>> > >>> nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 > >>> years ago. > >>> > >>> http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers > >>> > >>> > >>> almost at bottom of page > >> > >> > >> Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. > > > > Oh, we were and are brainwashed all right by the superiority of Western science. > > > > I was much more impressed by the thoughts and experiments of da Vinci, Newton, > > Galileo, Gauss, Lavoisier, Galvani, Volta, Faraday, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, > > Heaviside, Tesla, JC Bose, Marconi, Curie than I am of the bad lot of > > Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Hawking and their supporters following e=mcc > > physics. > > Bose was an Indian, dummy. Racist benj, one need not be Western to follow Western science. Plenty of Japanese and Chinese have also followed the great stream of Western science. > > The former presented their work simply, clearly, logically, and were as a result > > completely understandable. How brilliantly Torricelli demonstrated the reality > > of atmospheric pressure with his water barometer! How wonderful was the > > demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres to show the power of air pressure! > > Maxwell's great work related electrical constants to the speed of light, and > > the results from force experiments matched with those to measure light speed! > > Newton's brilliance was incredible - his thrust was on geometry and how maths > > modelling could predict the real world. The true father of engineering! da Vinci > > made a clean distinction between science and theology - all knowledge from > > science had to be provisional. > > Yeah, but he was gay. Figures for a Westerner. Crook benj, a failure in every way, talks about some irrelevant stuff about sexuality, which he does understand. > > It is this line that I adore, and follow, using their rigid methods. As opposed > > to being mendacious and posturing imaginative blowhards of the Einstein fashion, > > corrupting science by hand-waving, twisting, negating, ignoring... and always > > relying upon the power of money to corrupt the media, politicians and the > > academia. Sad. > > Yeah, I saw the video of you amazing perpetual motion pendulum > experiment. Fer sure no relying on power of money, media, politicians or > academia there! You da man! Yes, I am the da Vinci of our time, so you racist+bigots and other envious parties and suchlike assorted devils will do whatever they can to pull me down. > > There is a balance in the universe, so there is bad and there is good. The bads > > have had it good for a long time now, but if the energies of Pentcho Valev > > continue and proliferate, there may be hope for the real physics to emerge from > > the awesome piles of bullshit. > > Wait a minute. Pancho hates Einstein as much as you do? Why aren't you > working together to smash fake science? I don't get it. Neither do I. I am very happy to work with all those against e=mcc. My details are well known. I can be contacted by Usenet, by phone, by email. Anyone hating e=mcc is most welcome to contact me and work with me. We can make IFEs, HTN, and many other great works together that will be based upon correct physics, outing bad ideas like entropy, relativity, quantum etc and building upon kinetic formulations and aether. But if Pentcho is as much a racist+bigoted devil as you are, benj, then why should he contact me? The devils being devils will steal my divine ideas in order to make money and get comforts; or boost their egos otherwise by beating up other devils; and generally trying to make a god like myself look small by showing off their ill-gotten riches. > > Let us see. > > > > "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! > > Well, now, Banjo. THAT is the first natural law so far that you've > actually managed to get correct. Now that strikes a chord doesn't it benj, for bullshitting is what you e=mcc wallahs have always done, and always will. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 22:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a628ce$0$49860$b1db1813$19ace300@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647824 |
On 8/29/2017 10:03 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:20:33 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:32:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: >>>>> On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ari >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the >>>>>>>> speed of the >>>>>>>> emitter. >>>>>>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. >>>>>>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. >>>>>>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. >>>>>>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >>>>>>> positron. >>>>>> >>>>>> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 >>>>> years ago. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> almost at bottom of page >>>> >>>> >>>> Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. >>> >>> Oh, we were and are brainwashed all right by the superiority of Western science. >>> >>> I was much more impressed by the thoughts and experiments of da Vinci, Newton, >>> Galileo, Gauss, Lavoisier, Galvani, Volta, Faraday, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, >>> Heaviside, Tesla, JC Bose, Marconi, Curie than I am of the bad lot of >>> Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Hawking and their supporters following e=mcc >>> physics. >> >> Bose was an Indian, dummy. > > Racist benj, one need not be Western to follow Western science. Plenty of > Japanese and Chinese have also followed the great stream of Western science. > >>> The former presented their work simply, clearly, logically, and were as a result >>> completely understandable. How brilliantly Torricelli demonstrated the reality >>> of atmospheric pressure with his water barometer! How wonderful was the >>> demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres to show the power of air pressure! >>> Maxwell's great work related electrical constants to the speed of light, and >>> the results from force experiments matched with those to measure light speed! >>> Newton's brilliance was incredible - his thrust was on geometry and how maths >>> modelling could predict the real world. The true father of engineering! da Vinci >>> made a clean distinction between science and theology - all knowledge from >>> science had to be provisional. >> >> Yeah, but he was gay. Figures for a Westerner. > > Crook benj, a failure in every way, talks about some irrelevant stuff about > sexuality, which he does understand. Banjo you are still nothing but a third world pig-thief. Poncho told me it was true. >>> It is this line that I adore, and follow, using their rigid methods. As opposed >>> to being mendacious and posturing imaginative blowhards of the Einstein fashion, >>> corrupting science by hand-waving, twisting, negating, ignoring... and always >>> relying upon the power of money to corrupt the media, politicians and the >>> academia. Sad. >> >> Yeah, I saw the video of you amazing perpetual motion pendulum >> experiment. Fer sure no relying on power of money, media, politicians or >> academia there! You da man! > > Yes, I am the da Vinci of our time, so you racist+bigots and other envious > parties and suchlike assorted devils will do whatever they can to pull me down. You gay? Da Vinci was. >>> There is a balance in the universe, so there is bad and there is good. The bads >>> have had it good for a long time now, but if the energies of Pentcho Valev >>> continue and proliferate, there may be hope for the real physics to emerge from >>> the awesome piles of bullshit. >> >> Wait a minute. Pancho hates Einstein as much as you do? Why aren't you >> working together to smash fake science? I don't get it. > > Neither do I. I am very happy to work with all those against e=mcc. My details > are well known. I can be contacted by Usenet, by phone, by email. Anyone hating > e=mcc is most welcome to contact me and work with me. We can make IFEs, HTN, > and many other great works together that will be based upon correct physics, > outing bad ideas like entropy, relativity, quantum etc and building upon > kinetic formulations and aether. Bet you re ready to work with all those willing to prove that all the nonsense of the earth being round is wrong. I don't work with racist haters. > But if Pentcho is as much a racist+bigoted devil as you are, benj, then why > should he contact me? Why should ANYONE who is not a kook contact you? > The devils being devils will steal my divine ideas in order to make money and > get comforts; or boost their egos otherwise by beating up other devils; and > generally trying to make a god like myself look small by showing off their > ill-gotten riches. I would steal all your genius ideas in a second if there were any. Didn't you see me leap on Archie to steal his proof of the Goldbach conjecture (I'm sure you have no idea what that is! Archie is smarter than you! That is RICH!) But is was as dumb as you and there was nothing to steal. Not even a stray pig. >>> Let us see. >>> >>> "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! >> >> Well, now, Banjo. THAT is the first natural law so far that you've >> actually managed to get correct. > > Now that strikes a chord doesn't it benj, for bullshitting is what you > e=mcc wallahs have always done, and always will. Right, you being the greatest genius of all time is not bullshit but truth. I'm sure everyone here (except looper who loves you only because you are Indian) will agree with that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5582fafc-1ac6-45b6-8c9a-92a9b93e6ca6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647834 |
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:54:12 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/29/2017 10:03 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:20:33 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/28/2017 6:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:32:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: > >>>>> On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ari > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the > >>>>>>>> speed of the > >>>>>>>> emitter. > >>>>>>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. > >>>>>>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. > >>>>>>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. > >>>>>>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a > >>>>>>> positron. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 > >>>>> years ago. > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> almost at bottom of page > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. > >>> > >>> Oh, we were and are brainwashed all right by the superiority of Western science. > >>> > >>> I was much more impressed by the thoughts and experiments of da Vinci, Newton, > >>> Galileo, Gauss, Lavoisier, Galvani, Volta, Faraday, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, > >>> Heaviside, Tesla, JC Bose, Marconi, Curie than I am of the bad lot of > >>> Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Hawking and their supporters following e=mcc > >>> physics. > >> > >> Bose was an Indian, dummy. > > > > Racist benj, one need not be Western to follow Western science. Plenty of > > Japanese and Chinese have also followed the great stream of Western science. > > > >>> The former presented their work simply, clearly, logically, and were as a result > >>> completely understandable. How brilliantly Torricelli demonstrated the reality > >>> of atmospheric pressure with his water barometer! How wonderful was the > >>> demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres to show the power of air pressure! > >>> Maxwell's great work related electrical constants to the speed of light, and > >>> the results from force experiments matched with those to measure light speed! > >>> Newton's brilliance was incredible - his thrust was on geometry and how maths > >>> modelling could predict the real world. The true father of engineering! da Vinci > >>> made a clean distinction between science and theology - all knowledge from > >>> science had to be provisional. > >> > >> Yeah, but he was gay. Figures for a Westerner. > > > > Crook benj, a failure in every way, talks about some irrelevant stuff about > > sexuality, which he does understand. > > Banjo you are still nothing but a third world pig-thief. Poncho told me > it was true. Don't flatter yourself benj. You replaced your ape-brains with pig brains to become the pig-head you are. Then your heart. And your face - well that was an improvement. And replaced your limbs with pig trotters. But still I did not steal you, for weird though you are as a manpig I do not steal. > > >>> It is this line that I adore, and follow, using their rigid methods. As opposed > >>> to being mendacious and posturing imaginative blowhards of the Einstein fashion, > >>> corrupting science by hand-waving, twisting, negating, ignoring... and always > >>> relying upon the power of money to corrupt the media, politicians and the > >>> academia. Sad. > >> > >> Yeah, I saw the video of you amazing perpetual motion pendulum > >> experiment. Fer sure no relying on power of money, media, politicians or > >> academia there! You da man! > > > > Yes, I am the da Vinci of our time, so you racist+bigots and other envious > > parties and suchlike assorted devils will do whatever they can to pull me down. > > You gay? Da Vinci was. No. da Vinci did not marry, like Newton. I am immensely more fortunate. Your pig brains do run along predictable lines. > >>> There is a balance in the universe, so there is bad and there is good. The bads > >>> have had it good for a long time now, but if the energies of Pentcho Valev > >>> continue and proliferate, there may be hope for the real physics to emerge from > >>> the awesome piles of bullshit. > >> > >> Wait a minute. Pancho hates Einstein as much as you do? Why aren't you > >> working together to smash fake science? I don't get it. > > > > Neither do I. I am very happy to work with all those against e=mcc. My details > > are well known. I can be contacted by Usenet, by phone, by email. Anyone hating > > e=mcc is most welcome to contact me and work with me. We can make IFEs, HTN, > > and many other great works together that will be based upon correct physics, > > outing bad ideas like entropy, relativity, quantum etc and building upon > > kinetic formulations and aether. > > Bet you re ready to work with all those willing to prove that all the > nonsense of the earth being round is wrong. I don't work with racist > haters. Listen, mangpig benj, you are amusing in a way but this is getting tedious. > > But if Pentcho is as much a racist+bigoted devil as you are, benj, then why > > should he contact me? > > Why should ANYONE who is not a kook contact you? You don't think Pentcho is a kook for saying e=mcc is wrong? I am contacted by those who want money some way or the other. Banks offer me loans, charities want money, religious types want me to convert to their cult, solar panellists want to put panels on my roof, so many salesmen want to sell stuff, conmen want to give me millions, tradesmen and real estate chappies want my custom, doctors send me notices for giving blood samples... My friends want me to resume acting on stage, I am ever at the service of my family... so I get my fair share of contacts, thanks. Just that the media and intelligentsia avoid me like plutonium. They are happy to follow the lie that I am a recluse. > > The devils being devils will steal my divine ideas in order to make money and > > get comforts; or boost their egos otherwise by beating up other devils; and > > generally trying to make a god like myself look small by showing off their > > ill-gotten riches. > > I would steal all your genius ideas in a second if there were any. But you are such an idiot, you would not know anything about genius. You are just fun for me, honest racist+bigot that you are. A good joke. A diversion from my thoughtful pastimes. > Didn't you see me leap on Archie to steal his proof of the Goldbach > conjecture (I'm sure you have no idea what that is! Archie is smarter > than you! That is RICH!) But is was as dumb as you and there was nothing > to steal. Not even a stray pig. See, there you show your purpose in life, to maintain the status quo by equating my genius work with the idiotic ramblings of the Putrid-Poo. Your task is to corrupt and stifle science, as science is essentially revolutionary. A very capitalist-piggy thing to do, and you do it to the best of your ability, manpig benj. Note: manpig is a term like godman. It describes those who were once human but preferred the life of a pig, so much that they acquired pig brains, pig heart, pig faces, pig stomachs and finally pig trotters. In the metaphorical sense, that is. > >>> Let us see. > >>> > >>> "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! > >> > >> Well, now, Banjo. THAT is the first natural law so far that you've > >> actually managed to get correct. > > > > Now that strikes a chord doesn't it benj, for bullshitting is what you > > e=mcc wallahs have always done, and always will. > > Right, you being the greatest genius of all time is not bullshit but > truth. Just as a monkey playing a piano for eternity can be expected by the laws of probability to strike a true piece of music sooner or later, you have managed to do the equivalent, by providing the wisdom you show above. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee I'm sure everyone here (except looper who loves you only because > you are Indian) will agree with that one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 10:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo42gl$a6e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647665 |
On 8/28/2017 5:38 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 7:32:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: >>> On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:48:47 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 8/27/17 5:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:52:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/26/17 9:34 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:49:55 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 5:53:27 AM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Ari >>> >>>>> >>>>>> I showed that MMI proves that the light speed must vary with the >>>>>> speed of the >>>>>> emitter. >>>>>> This throws out the basic postulate behind SR. >>>>>> So only dishonest people can support SR. >>>>>> Anyway to say that e=mcc is just an unsupported theory. >>>>>> There is no proof that energy converts to matter and vice versa. >>>>> >>>>> There's protons generated from the collision of an electron and a >>>>> positron. >>>> >>>> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. >>> >>> >>> nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 >>> years ago. >>> >>> http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers >>> >>> >>> almost at bottom of page >> >> >> Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. > > Oh, we were and are brainwashed all right by the superiority of Western science. > > I was much more impressed by the thoughts and experiments of da Vinci, Newton, > Galileo, Gauss, Lavoisier, Galvani, Volta, Faraday, Maxwell, JJ Thomson, > Heaviside, Tesla, JC Bose, Marconi, Curie than I am of the bad lot of > Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Hawking and their supporters following e=mcc > physics. > > The former presented their work simply, clearly, logically, and were as a result > completely understandable. How brilliantly Torricelli demonstrated the reality > of atmospheric pressure with his water barometer! How wonderful was the > demonstration of the Magdeburg hemispheres to show the power of air pressure! > Maxwell's great work related electrical constants to the speed of light, and > the results from force experiments matched with those to measure light speed! > Newton's brilliance was incredible - his thrust was on geometry and how maths > modelling could predict the real world. The true father of engineering! da Vinci > made a clean distinction between science and theology - all knowledge from > science had to be provisional. good stuff, solid, repeatable, genius, Euler ... > > It is this line that I adore, and follow, using their rigid methods. As opposed > to being mendacious and posturing imaginative blowhards of the Einstein fashion, > corrupting science by hand-waving, twisting, negating, ignoring... and always > relying upon the power of money to corrupt the media, politicians and the > academia. Sad. > > There is a balance in the universe, so there is bad and there is good. The bads > have had it good for a long time now, but if the energies of Pentcho Valev > continue and proliferate, there may be hope for the real physics to emerge from > the awesome piles of bullshit. ...like mushrooms... in the end fungi eat us all. (-The Great Spore) > > Let us see. > > "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! hey! that is what got our President elected! (well actually the last 6 presidents) USA Mainstream Media creates and lives off the Power of Bullshit (POB), no shit. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 18:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <498d1554-0d7b-4aa3-8a0c-60cd4c23a704@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647747 |
> > > "The power of bullshit - never underestimate." Some lesson! > > hey! that is what got our President elected! > > (well actually the last 6 presidents) > > > USA Mainstream Media creates and lives off the Power of Bullshit (POB), > no shit. How are they worse than the non-mainstream media? As they all ignore my work as presented in my video films they are ALL racists and bigots first and foremost. So, they are all uninteresting, and no point just blaming the mainstream media. They are only after money, not just prejudice. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-28 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1174f416-80c6-4f3d-8b33-4d8ee87b7cd2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647657 |
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:32:43 PM UTC-4, benj wrote: > On 8/28/2017 3:38 PM, Serg io wrote: > > On 8/27/2017 7:52 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: <trim> > >> A positron is an imaginary concept. It does not form part of matter. > > > > nope, it is a particle, it creates a track in a cloud chamber, known 84 > > years ago. > > > > http://www.s-cool.co.uk/a-level/physics/radioactivity/revise-it/cloud-and-bubble-chambers > > > > almost at bottom of page > > Known 84 years ago everywhere but India. O yeah? So?! When did you ever vist India or Australia, BenjJi? Here's what you read like BenjJi: You know this one guy, named BanerjeeJi. I so dislike him. So this one guy moves from India to Australia. Suddenly, you BenjJi extrapolate/conclude that two entire countries are backwards, incompetent. Lesson? Bashing any one individual does not make you look scientific. What does science say about making vast proclamations based on a single point? You do realize India has a space program and the USA recently used it to launch a 100+ satellites in one rockect? India has a nuclear program? India writes 90+ percent of all SW used worldwide? If you just want to mock/belittle people, no one but you can stop you, BenjJi. -- 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]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web