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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a1ec20$0$53159$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647303 |
On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. Odd you are a racist, Western Pig-thief. The criminals in Western science have no credibility with the true geniuses of the world. > As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > a must. Of course it does odd. He says E=mcc does not work. There for the proof is that nobody (even in India) has ever made an atomic bomb work. It is that simple and that obvious you racist bigot! >> >> 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 | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 17:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1885bf61-a3ce-4b2a-9faa-533a2a60722e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647366 |
On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed of light from the MMI experiment. That leads to SR and e=mcc, along with the ridiculous nonsense of not being able to travel faster than light, getting heavier as we move faster, and shorter too. Then the realm of pure fraud was entered with the "proof" of GR from the solar eclipse - a purely optical effect was palmed off as space warping from the Sun's gravity. This shameless conduct continued, by passing off Doppler effect as wavelengths getting reduced or increased with the relative velocity, this to keep c constant as per their e=mcc theory. No self-respecting person should have anything to do with this rubbish, and so Pentcho Valev has been very busy showing the world how many scientists now find Einstein's notions to be completely rubbish. > > Odd you are a racist, Western Pig-thief. The criminals in Western > science have no credibility with the true geniuses of the world. Absolutely. Unfortunately since Einstein the racist+bigoted scum posing as physicists have taken over the western world in not just the field of physics. They are allied with the corrupted reverse-racist scum among the non-whites. Avoiding them all like the plague is the sound policy of not just the genius, but everyone with any sense. The result may well be obscurity in one's lifetime, but there will be peace at heart from not succumbing to lies and their associated disgusting consequences. > > As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > > a must. > > Of course it does odd. He says E=mcc does not work. There for the proof > is that nobody (even in India) has ever made an atomic bomb work. It is > that simple and that obvious you racist bigot! Atom bombs are based upon another formula which I found in 1999. e=mcc is a joke. Read my aphorisms on explosions. All explosions including atom bombs are based upon e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Anyone here with wits, see how that equation can explain the atom bomb before I start to explain. Let us see some effort here. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > >> > >> 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 | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 22:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a2331d$0$57973$c3e8da3$aae71a0a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647381 |
On 8/26/2017 8:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed > of light from the MMI experiment. That leads to SR and e=mcc, along with the > ridiculous nonsense of not being able to travel faster than light, getting > heavier as we move faster, and shorter too. Then the realm of pure fraud was > entered with the "proof" of GR from the solar eclipse - a purely optical > effect was palmed off as space warping from the Sun's gravity. > > This shameless conduct continued, by passing off Doppler effect as wavelengths > getting reduced or increased with the relative velocity, this to keep c > constant as per their e=mcc theory. > > No self-respecting person should have anything to do with this rubbish, and so > Pentcho Valev has been very busy showing the world how many scientists now find > Einstein's notions to be completely rubbish. >> >> Odd you are a racist, Western Pig-thief. The criminals in Western >> science have no credibility with the true geniuses of the world. > > Absolutely. Unfortunately since Einstein the racist+bigoted scum posing as > physicists have taken over the western world in not just the field of physics. > > They are allied with the corrupted reverse-racist scum among the non-whites. > > Avoiding them all like the plague is the sound policy of not just the genius, > but everyone with any sense. > > The result may well be obscurity in one's lifetime, but there will be peace at > heart from not succumbing to lies and their associated disgusting consequences. > >>> As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is >>> a must. >> >> Of course it does odd. He says E=mcc does not work. There for the proof >> is that nobody (even in India) has ever made an atomic bomb work. It is >> that simple and that obvious you racist bigot! > > Atom bombs are based upon another formula which I found in 1999. e=mcc is a > joke. > > Read my aphorisms on explosions. All explosions including atom bombs are based > upon e=0.5mVVN(N-k) Sure. 0.5mvv where m is the mass of the uranium that gives the energy. We got it. Bet you measure gravity with your Fluke multimenter too. This is so wrong as to not even be stooopid. How do you have to balls to post this kind of ignorance on the net and embarrass not only your home country, but the one you now live in as well. I guess everyone is as ignorant in those places as you are. > Anyone here with wits, see how that equation can explain the atom bomb before > I start to explain. Let us see some effort here. Anyone here with half-wits can see you are nothing but a joke. Very funny banjo. Now quit wasting our time. .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a87a2a6a-b957-4ccc-9e06-d2fcd2d2d886@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647387 |
On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 12:49:04 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/26/2017 8:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed > > of light from the MMI experiment. That leads to SR and e=mcc, along with the > > ridiculous nonsense of not being able to travel faster than light, getting > > heavier as we move faster, and shorter too. Then the realm of pure fraud was > > entered with the "proof" of GR from the solar eclipse - a purely optical > > effect was palmed off as space warping from the Sun's gravity. > > > > This shameless conduct continued, by passing off Doppler effect as wavelengths > > getting reduced or increased with the relative velocity, this to keep c > > constant as per their e=mcc theory. > > > > No self-respecting person should have anything to do with this rubbish, and so > > Pentcho Valev has been very busy showing the world how many scientists now find > > Einstein's notions to be completely rubbish. > >> > >> Odd you are a racist, Western Pig-thief. The criminals in Western > >> science have no credibility with the true geniuses of the world. > > > > Absolutely. Unfortunately since Einstein the racist+bigoted scum posing as > > physicists have taken over the western world in not just the field of physics. > > > > They are allied with the corrupted reverse-racist scum among the non-whites. > > > > Avoiding them all like the plague is the sound policy of not just the genius, > > but everyone with any sense. > > > > The result may well be obscurity in one's lifetime, but there will be peace at > > heart from not succumbing to lies and their associated disgusting consequences. > > > >>> As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > >>> a must. > >> > >> Of course it does odd. He says E=mcc does not work. There for the proof > >> is that nobody (even in India) has ever made an atomic bomb work. It is > >> that simple and that obvious you racist bigot! > > > > Atom bombs are based upon another formula which I found in 1999. e=mcc is a > > joke. > > > > Read my aphorisms on explosions. All explosions including atom bombs are based > > upon e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > Sure. 0.5mvv where m is the mass of the uranium that gives the energy. > We got it. Bet you measure gravity with your Fluke multimenter too. Liar, liar, pants on fire. The sad thing is that you cannot even lie convincingly. Einstein & Co. were far better with their chutiappah. This > is so wrong as to not even be stooopid. How do you have to balls to post > this kind of ignorance on the net and embarrass not only your home > country, but the one you now live in as well. I guess everyone is as > ignorant in those places as you are. > > > > Anyone here with wits, see how that equation can explain the atom bomb before > > I start to explain. Let us see some effort here. > > Anyone here with half-wits can see you are nothing but a joke. Very > funny banjo. Now quit wasting our time. > > .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 16:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onvepn$179j$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647381 |
On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed > of light from the MMI experiment. If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. > That leads to SR and e=mcc, along with the > ridiculous nonsense of not being able to travel faster than light, getting > heavier as we move faster, and shorter too. Then the realm of pure fraud was > entered with the "proof" of GR from the solar eclipse - a purely optical > effect was palmed off as space warping from the Sun's gravity. > > This shameless conduct continued, by passing off Doppler effect as wavelengths > getting reduced or increased with the relative velocity, this to keep c > constant as per their e=mcc theory. > > No self-respecting person should have anything to do with this rubbish, and so > Pentcho Valev has been very busy showing the world how many scientists now find > Einstein's notions to be completely rubbish. >> >> Odd you are a racist, Western Pig-thief. The criminals in Western >> science have no credibility with the true geniuses of the world. > > Absolutely. Unfortunately since Einstein the racist+bigoted scum posing as > physicists have taken over the western world in not just the field of physics. > > They are allied with the corrupted reverse-racist scum among the non-whites. > > Avoiding them all like the plague is the sound policy of not just the genius, > but everyone with any sense. > > The result may well be obscurity in one's lifetime, but there will be peace at > heart from not succumbing to lies and their associated disgusting consequences. > >>> As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is >>> a must. >> >> Of course it does odd. He says E=mcc does not work. There for the proof >> is that nobody (even in India) has ever made an atomic bomb work. It is >> that simple and that obvious you racist bigot! > > Atom bombs are based upon another formula which I found in 1999. e=mcc is a > joke. > > Read my aphorisms on explosions. All explosions including atom bombs are based > upon e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > Anyone here with wits, see how that equation can explain the atom bomb before > I start to explain. Let us see some effort here. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee >> >>>> >>>> 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 17:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77b76261-ca44-4542-ae57-8682adb16f41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647479 |
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:49:48 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed > > of light from the MMI experiment. > > If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the > Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor > understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. Stick to making your toys. > > > That leads to SR and e=mcc, along with the > > ridiculous nonsense of not being able to travel faster than light, getting > > heavier as we move faster, and shorter too. Then the realm of pure fraud was > > entered with the "proof" of GR from the solar eclipse - a purely optical > > effect was palmed off as space warping from the Sun's gravity. > > > > This shameless conduct continued, by passing off Doppler effect as wavelengths > > getting reduced or increased with the relative velocity, this to keep c > > constant as per their e=mcc theory. > > > > No self-respecting person should have anything to do with this rubbish, and so > > Pentcho Valev has been very busy showing the world how many scientists now find > > Einstein's notions to be completely rubbish. > >> > >> Odd you are a racist, Western Pig-thief. The criminals in Western > >> science have no credibility with the true geniuses of the world. > > > > Absolutely. Unfortunately since Einstein the racist+bigoted scum posing as > > physicists have taken over the western world in not just the field of physics. > > > > They are allied with the corrupted reverse-racist scum among the non-whites. > > > > Avoiding them all like the plague is the sound policy of not just the genius, > > but everyone with any sense. > > > > The result may well be obscurity in one's lifetime, but there will be peace at > > heart from not succumbing to lies and their associated disgusting consequences. > > > >>> As I said, your idea makes NO quantitative predictions. In physics this is > >>> a must. > >> > >> Of course it does odd. He says E=mcc does not work. There for the proof > >> is that nobody (even in India) has ever made an atomic bomb work. It is > >> that simple and that obvious you racist bigot! > > > > Atom bombs are based upon another formula which I found in 1999. e=mcc is a > > joke. > > > > Read my aphorisms on explosions. All explosions including atom bombs are based > > upon e=0.5mVVN(N-k) > > > > Anyone here with wits, see how that equation can explain the atom bomb before > > I start to explain. Let us see some effort here. > > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > >> > >>>> > >>>> 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 | 2017-08-28 08:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo15om$1oru$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647505 |
On 8/27/17 7:47 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:49:48 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed >>> of light from the MMI experiment. >> >> If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the >> Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor >> understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. > > Stick to making your toys. Isn't it amazing that a woodworker knows more about the experimental basis of relativity than you do? I think that's pretty amazing. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 05:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2622ead3-20e2-419a-a5f9-8e7b8487bcbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647543 |
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:27:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/27/17 7:47 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:49:48 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed > >>> of light from the MMI experiment. > >> > >> If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the > >> Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor > >> understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. > > > > Stick to making your toys. > > Isn't it amazing that a woodworker knows more about the experimental > basis of relativity than you do? I think that's pretty amazing. A maker of toys etc. can be a sponge of the establishment, and robotically repeat what he has learnt. An original engineer who has to do new things for his living, must have a scientific attitude otherwise he cannot do new things. It is the latter, not the former, who has the ability to filter out the nonsense held to be sense, such as e=mcc, from the work he has to do, such as desigining antenna radiation patterns with radiators and microwave circuitry. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo9l1e$srs$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647731 |
On 8/29/17 7:12 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:27:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/27/17 7:47 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:49:48 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed >>>>> of light from the MMI experiment. >>>> >>>> If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the >>>> Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor >>>> understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. >>> >>> Stick to making your toys. >> >> Isn't it amazing that a woodworker knows more about the experimental >> basis of relativity than you do? I think that's pretty amazing. > > A maker of toys etc. can be a sponge of the establishment, and robotically > repeat what he has learnt. Learning means understanding. It's amazing how many things you have never learned. > An original engineer who has to do new things for his living, must have a > scientific attitude otherwise he cannot do new things. And you do not. So apparently you have lost your abilities in this area. I understand that it is difficult to accept, later in life, that you are no longer the man you used to be, to the point where denial kicks in. You say repeatedly, "Look at the things I did years ago! I was accomplished! I was respected." But look at you NOW, and what you have lost. > It is the latter, not the former, who has the ability to filter out the > nonsense held to be sense, such as e=mcc, from the work he has to do, such as > desigining antenna radiation patterns with radiators and microwave circuitry. > >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-09-01 04:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b366a9e9-304a-4519-adc1-11f66e6fadac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648042 |
On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:37:41 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/29/17 7:12 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:27:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 8/27/17 7:47 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:49:48 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed > >>>>> of light from the MMI experiment. > >>>> > >>>> If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the > >>>> Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor > >>>> understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. > >>> > >>> Stick to making your toys. > >> > >> Isn't it amazing that a woodworker knows more about the experimental > >> basis of relativity than you do? I think that's pretty amazing. > > > > A maker of toys etc. can be a sponge of the establishment, and robotically > > repeat what he has learnt. > > Learning means understanding. It's amazing how many things you have > never learned. > > > An original engineer who has to do new things for his living, must have a > > scientific attitude otherwise he cannot do new things. > > And you do not. So apparently you have lost your abilities in this area. > I understand that it is difficult to accept, later in life, that you are > no longer the man you used to be, to the point where denial kicks in. > You say repeatedly, "Look at the things I did years ago! I was > accomplished! I was respected." But look at you NOW, and what you have lost. What a liar you are. > > > It is the latter, not the former, who has the ability to filter out the > > nonsense held to be sense, such as e=mcc, from the work he has to do, such as > > desigining antenna radiation patterns with radiators and microwave circuitry. > > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-01 17:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a9cde8$0$1899$b1db1813$46202bfe@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #648116 |
On 9/1/2017 7:38 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 4:37:41 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/29/17 7:12 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:27:56 PM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 8/27/17 7:47 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:49:48 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 8/26/17 7:58 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 7:46:13 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/26/2017 10:34 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. The only thing they think they can show is the invariance of the speed >>>>>>> of light from the MMI experiment. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you believe the experimental basis of relativity rests on the >>>>>> Michelson Morley experiment, then you have a very, very, very poor >>>>>> understanding of relativity and the experimental basis for it. >>>>> >>>>> Stick to making your toys. >>>> >>>> Isn't it amazing that a woodworker knows more about the experimental >>>> basis of relativity than you do? I think that's pretty amazing. >>> >>> A maker of toys etc. can be a sponge of the establishment, and robotically >>> repeat what he has learnt. >> >> Learning means understanding. It's amazing how many things you have >> never learned. >> >>> An original engineer who has to do new things for his living, must have a >>> scientific attitude otherwise he cannot do new things. >> >> And you do not. So apparently you have lost your abilities in this area. >> I understand that it is difficult to accept, later in life, that you are >> no longer the man you used to be, to the point where denial kicks in. >> You say repeatedly, "Look at the things I did years ago! I was >> accomplished! I was respected." But look at you NOW, and what you have lost. > > What a liar you are. Nonsense. YOU are the liar. Odd is into fantasy, never into lies! >>> It is the latter, not the former, who has the ability to filter out the >>> nonsense held to be sense, such as e=mcc, from the work he has to do, such as >>> desigining antenna radiation patterns with radiators and microwave circuitry. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2017-08-25 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a22d133c-596c-4b14-abd3-7fca9b4b0053@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647162 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:00:25 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/25/17 7:24 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > These films show the greatest experiments in physics, that completely overturn > > accepted thinking and open the most marvellous scopes for energy and travel. > > > > In simplicity, clarity, ease of reproduction, detail, analysis... they have > > no match. In video form, they explain far better the workings of Nature than > > could ever be possible in any print media. > > Shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement have no place in > science. None. By your own words, you condemn yourself to the dungheap > of posturers. Heh, sore loser you are. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <onq2lj$10to$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647211 |
On 8/25/17 3:33 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:00:25 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/25/17 7:24 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> These films show the greatest experiments in physics, that completely overturn >>> accepted thinking and open the most marvellous scopes for energy and travel. >>> >>> In simplicity, clarity, ease of reproduction, detail, analysis... they have >>> no match. In video form, they explain far better the workings of Nature than >>> could ever be possible in any print media. >> >> Shameless self-promotion and self-aggrandizement have no place in >> science. None. By your own words, you condemn yourself to the dungheap >> of posturers. > > Heh, sore loser you are. I've lost nothing here. What I stated is true. I'm fully aware, as are most others here, that your chief goal is to draw attention to yourself and keep busy in conversation. That is not the chief goal of a scientist. Just keep that in mind, a little ahead of your ego. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 18:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a0a184$0$41935$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647150 |
On 8/25/2017 7:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:35:49 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>> On 8/24/2017 6:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:47:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:07 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>> Protons everywhere are identical. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you think so? >>>>>> >>>>> He looked at each and every one (using his superpowers) and found none >>>>> of them any different from each other. >>>> >>>> But I, Arindam, went into the House of Parliament that represents humans and >>>> found that all were not the same in mass and style, though maybe all alike >>>> in opportunism. >>>> >>> You got me there Banjo. While politicians may all be all alike in >>> opportunism and unabashed desire for power, they are all quite different >>> in their ways of realizing those goals. >> >> Glad to know you understand at least something, benj. Now look at this way. They >> are all charged the same way, but have different masses. Like, just as >> everything converts to money today in our money-grubbing world, let us say >> that all about a politician converts to just mass. His greed or stupidity >> increase his mass. His professions of doing good lessen his mass. >> >> Compare the politician with the proton, now. >> >> The proton as per Arindam could have a variable mass, with its charge >> proportional to the mass. In other words, there could be fat protons and thin >> protons, the fatter ones having proportionately more charge. This is an >> assumption. A theory. What we think of a protonic mass is an average of all >> the protons around. To say that the average is the standard without deviation >> for all protons, mind you, is also an assumption. >> >> But all protons are charged positively. Just as all politicians are charged the >> same way, with opportunism and as you add unabashed desire for power. >> >> As we find politicians with variable masses, why cannot protons have variable >> masses with the atomic weight of hydrogen being the average of them all? > > > Oh, there's the small problem of experimental data that clearly rules that > out. > But never let data get in the way of imagination. Obviously Odd, you are a racist pseudo-physicists who rely upon nasty political methods instead of the science of the worlds greatest genius. It's no wonder everybody is on your case when all you believe is other racist pseudo-physicists rather than listening to the world's true geniuses!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-25 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <852a7dbe-25de-45af-93ea-1d85cda1a1eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647229 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:15:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 8/25/2017 7:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:35:49 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>> On 8/24/2017 6:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:47:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:07 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>>>> Protons everywhere are identical. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Why do you think so? > >>>>>> > >>>>> He looked at each and every one (using his superpowers) and found none > >>>>> of them any different from each other. > >>>> > >>>> But I, Arindam, went into the House of Parliament that represents humans and > >>>> found that all were not the same in mass and style, though maybe all alike > >>>> in opportunism. > >>>> > >>> You got me there Banjo. While politicians may all be all alike in > >>> opportunism and unabashed desire for power, they are all quite different > >>> in their ways of realizing those goals. > >> > >> Glad to know you understand at least something, benj. Now look at this way. They > >> are all charged the same way, but have different masses. Like, just as > >> everything converts to money today in our money-grubbing world, let us say > >> that all about a politician converts to just mass. His greed or stupidity > >> increase his mass. His professions of doing good lessen his mass. > >> > >> Compare the politician with the proton, now. > >> > >> The proton as per Arindam could have a variable mass, with its charge > >> proportional to the mass. In other words, there could be fat protons and thin > >> protons, the fatter ones having proportionately more charge. This is an > >> assumption. A theory. What we think of a protonic mass is an average of all > >> the protons around. To say that the average is the standard without deviation > >> for all protons, mind you, is also an assumption. > >> > >> But all protons are charged positively. Just as all politicians are charged the > >> same way, with opportunism and as you add unabashed desire for power. > >> > >> As we find politicians with variable masses, why cannot protons have variable > >> masses with the atomic weight of hydrogen being the average of them all? > > > > > > Oh, there's the small problem of experimental data that clearly rules that > > out. > > But never let data get in the way of imagination. > > > Obviously Odd, you are a racist pseudo-physicists who rely upon nasty > political methods instead of the science of the worlds greatest genius. > It's no wonder everybody is on your case when all you believe is other > racist pseudo-physicists rather than listening to the world's true > geniuses! You racist-bigoted pseudo-physicists not having much joy kissing the backside of Donald Trump?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 01:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a10d78$0$61793$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647282 |
On 08/26/2017 12:53 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:15:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >> On 8/25/2017 7:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:35:49 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>> On 8/24/2017 6:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:47:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:07 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+10, john wrote: >>>>>>>>> Protons everywhere are identical. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why do you think so? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> He looked at each and every one (using his superpowers) and found none >>>>>>> of them any different from each other. >>>>>> >>>>>> But I, Arindam, went into the House of Parliament that represents humans and >>>>>> found that all were not the same in mass and style, though maybe all alike >>>>>> in opportunism. >>>>>> >>>>> You got me there Banjo. While politicians may all be all alike in >>>>> opportunism and unabashed desire for power, they are all quite different >>>>> in their ways of realizing those goals. >>>> >>>> Glad to know you understand at least something, benj. Now look at this way. They >>>> are all charged the same way, but have different masses. Like, just as >>>> everything converts to money today in our money-grubbing world, let us say >>>> that all about a politician converts to just mass. His greed or stupidity >>>> increase his mass. His professions of doing good lessen his mass. >>>> >>>> Compare the politician with the proton, now. >>>> >>>> The proton as per Arindam could have a variable mass, with its charge >>>> proportional to the mass. In other words, there could be fat protons and thin >>>> protons, the fatter ones having proportionately more charge. This is an >>>> assumption. A theory. What we think of a protonic mass is an average of all >>>> the protons around. To say that the average is the standard without deviation >>>> for all protons, mind you, is also an assumption. >>>> >>>> But all protons are charged positively. Just as all politicians are charged the >>>> same way, with opportunism and as you add unabashed desire for power. >>>> >>>> As we find politicians with variable masses, why cannot protons have variable >>>> masses with the atomic weight of hydrogen being the average of them all? >>> >>> >>> Oh, there's the small problem of experimental data that clearly rules that >>> out. >>> But never let data get in the way of imagination. >> >> >> Obviously Odd, you are a racist pseudo-physicists who rely upon nasty >> political methods instead of the science of the worlds greatest genius. >> It's no wonder everybody is on your case when all you believe is other >> racist pseudo-physicists rather than listening to the world's true >> geniuses! > > You racist-bigoted pseudo-physicists not having much joy kissing the backside of Donald Trump? > Trump knows pig-thief illegals when he sees them and knows how to deal with them too. You are fooling nobody. Go "look for a better life" somewhere else!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 05:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6f377d0-8202-4b9a-af96-48e5263c3912@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647288 |
On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 3:56:13 PM UTC+10, benj wrote: > On 08/26/2017 12:53 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:15:36 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >> On 8/25/2017 7:32 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 9:35:49 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>> On 8/24/2017 6:50 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:47:43 AM UTC+10, benj wrote: > >>>>>>> On 8/24/2017 8:07 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 12:42:10 PM UTC+10, john wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Protons everywhere are identical. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Why do you think so? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> He looked at each and every one (using his superpowers) and found none > >>>>>>> of them any different from each other. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But I, Arindam, went into the House of Parliament that represents humans and > >>>>>> found that all were not the same in mass and style, though maybe all alike > >>>>>> in opportunism. > >>>>>> > >>>>> You got me there Banjo. While politicians may all be all alike in > >>>>> opportunism and unabashed desire for power, they are all quite different > >>>>> in their ways of realizing those goals. > >>>> > >>>> Glad to know you understand at least something, benj. Now look at this way. They > >>>> are all charged the same way, but have different masses. Like, just as > >>>> everything converts to money today in our money-grubbing world, let us say > >>>> that all about a politician converts to just mass. His greed or stupidity > >>>> increase his mass. His professions of doing good lessen his mass. > >>>> > >>>> Compare the politician with the proton, now. > >>>> > >>>> The proton as per Arindam could have a variable mass, with its charge > >>>> proportional to the mass. In other words, there could be fat protons and thin > >>>> protons, the fatter ones having proportionately more charge. This is an > >>>> assumption. A theory. What we think of a protonic mass is an average of all > >>>> the protons around. To say that the average is the standard without deviation > >>>> for all protons, mind you, is also an assumption. > >>>> > >>>> But all protons are charged positively. Just as all politicians are charged the > >>>> same way, with opportunism and as you add unabashed desire for power. > >>>> > >>>> As we find politicians with variable masses, why cannot protons have variable > >>>> masses with the atomic weight of hydrogen being the average of them all? > >>> > >>> > >>> Oh, there's the small problem of experimental data that clearly rules that > >>> out. > >>> But never let data get in the way of imagination. > >> > >> > >> Obviously Odd, you are a racist pseudo-physicists who rely upon nasty > >> political methods instead of the science of the worlds greatest genius. > >> It's no wonder everybody is on your case when all you believe is other > >> racist pseudo-physicists rather than listening to the world's true > >> geniuses! > > > > You racist-bigoted pseudo-physicists not having much joy kissing the backside of Donald Trump? > > > > Trump knows pig-thief illegals when he sees them and knows how to deal > with them too. You are fooling nobody. Go "look for a better life" > somewhere else! I have a far, far, far better life than you racist-bigoted pseudo-physicists trapped in the stinking latrine of your mean and miserable minds, could ever imagine. And not just in the world of the mind. Conditions have always been ideal, perfect, superb for me in all the lands I have lived. Such is the grace I have received from the Divine, o ye stupid ostrich benj. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-26 10:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ons5h7$cr1$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647294 |
On 8/26/17 7:14 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > I have a far, far, far better life So does Richard Branson. However, this does not make him a scientist. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 03:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7dd2e867-c7e5-4a2c-80d5-2216d889e01b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647308 |
On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:53:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 8/26/17 7:14 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > I have a far, far, far better life > > So does Richard Branson. > However, this does not make him a scientist. A scientist is known by his dedication and contribution to science. My contribution has been to revise physics. If I did not have such an excellent life that would not have been possible. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-27 12:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <onudfp$1hcj$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647410 |
Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 1:53:17 AM UTC+10, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 8/26/17 7:14 AM, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>> I have a far, far, far better life >> >> So does Richard Branson. >> However, this does not make him a scientist. > > A scientist is known by his dedication and contribution to science. As esteemed by other scientists, not by himself. Important difference. > My contribution has been to revise physics. > If I did not have such an excellent life that would not have been possible. > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web