Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647234 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500 |
| Last post | 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 218 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500
What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 16:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:28 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 18:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 01:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:52 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 12:27 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 08:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 09:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-27 18:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:24 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-27 22:54 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 06:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 10:05 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:29 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 08:50 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 09:56 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:02 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 18:05 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:14 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:31 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-28 20:44 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 12:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 13:30 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 16:15 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 16:32 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 19:33 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:26 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 18:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 18:32 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-28 21:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 06:26 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:40 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 16:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 15:53 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 17:34 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 09:27 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:37 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 12:40 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:03 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 13:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:38 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:43 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 15:50 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 14:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:06 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 11:47 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 07:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 10:19 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:16 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:03 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-31 17:04 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 18:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:52 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 21:38 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 02:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:33 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:11 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 10:23 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 11:19 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 14:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:14 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 15:39 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 16:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:28 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 17:34 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:18 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:30 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 19:05 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 01:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 07:02 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:20 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 05:21 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:08 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:27 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 13:35 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 06:50 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 07:16 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 20:29 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 14:00 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 22:54 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 19:37 -0700
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:05 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:08 -0500
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2017-09-03 12:47 +0000
Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2017-09-05 06:51 -0500
Re: I'm the best c coder here. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:07 -0700
Re: Michael Glasser is THE UNDISPUTED KING of low SignalToNoise ratios. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-09-05 11:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 06:50 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 05:01 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-04 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 11:16 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 12:41 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:21 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 15:12 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:33 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 13:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-04 14:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:03 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-05 17:18 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:29 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 18:51 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:53 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 19:17 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:23 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 06:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:08 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 07:32 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:07 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 15:39 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 09:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 17:25 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 19:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 05:55 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:46 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 07:09 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 12:44 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 01:51 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 00:42 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 00:16 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-09-04 21:35 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 02:48 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-02 18:26 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 22:47 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 19:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-01 23:42 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 22:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view poraty350@gmail.com - 2017-09-02 00:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view "Dingus Dirtbag McGee" <scopeflenser@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 18:58 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 19:04 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-09-01 10:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 10:25 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view fr314159@gmail.com - 2017-08-28 06:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 11:45 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 12:36 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-28 15:59 -0500
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 07:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Sadovnik Socratus <44socrat@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 02:46 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-08-30 06:59 -0700
Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-30 19:00 +0000
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 14:00 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <97297887-f0f5-43fc-85cc-b5d3c876da78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648501 |
MM " Easily explainable if there's some invisible heavy stuff in there (ever " Nobody has yet successfully modelled that BS idea with computers. Invisible magic stuff is always part of BS theories- it DOES make EVERYTHING easy to explain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 22:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <ooi16m$n8a$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648507 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >Easily explainable if there's some invisible heavy stuff in there (ever " >Nobody has yet successfully modelled that BS idea with computers. Yes, they have, John. Your lack of knowledge of that fact doesn't make it not true. >Invisible magic stuff is always part of BS theories- it DOES make >EVERYTHING easy to explain If you think mass with ordinary gravity is "magic" somehow, you are worse off than I thought. I thought everyone was familiar with gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 19:37 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <2ef6e449-b049-4e33-b2c2-a543424e2b18@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648521 |
MM " you think mass with ordinary gravity is "magic" somehow, you are " No, Michael, DM is pure fudge and you know it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 06:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <ooiqf3$fgu$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648548 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" you think mass with ordinary gravity is "magic" somehow, you are " >No, Michael, DM is pure fudge and you know it. Explain. (crickets)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <ookc0g$1e9t$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648507 |
On 9/3/17 4:00 PM, john wrote: > MM > " > > Easily explainable if there's some invisible heavy stuff in there (ever " > Nobody has yet successfully modelled that BS idea with computers. Not so. > Invisible magic stuff is always part of BS theories- it DOES make EVERYTHING easy to explain > What's magic about it? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 15:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <ookbve$1e9t$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648469 |
On 9/3/17 9:16 AM, john wrote: > Odd > Besides- further out stars are MEASURED to go as fast OR FASTER than more central stars. Yes, that's what you expect from a certain distribution of mass. > Your silly suck Gravity died in the 70's. > You dinosaurs just won't accept it. > MOND is one approach that gives a better match Which I have mentioned, that there are OTHER approaches besides DM that are being pursued. Surely you're aware that the MOND approach has some difficulties with other data. To a scientist that's a problem. To you, not so much. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 15:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <ookbrn$1e9t$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648468 |
On 9/3/17 8:50 AM, john wrote: > Odd > When they do GRCs, they pick stars AT THE SAME RADIUS, you dildo > Of course they do. And the different stars at the same radius are surrounded by DIFFERING concentrations of matter, which results in their tangential speeds being different. Because galaxies are neither uniform nor symmetric. Nor should you expect them to be. It's like picking two people at equal elevations, one on the coast of Alabama and the other in NYC. They have DIFFERENT surroundings though they are at equal altitude. What about this do you not get? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 12:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <oogtl002ud6@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #648432 |
On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 01:37:03 -0700, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > <PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A, monospace !important;'> > If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it, > even if he, and everyone else, knows it's a delusion. > Jeff-Ass is the LIVING PROOF of that assertion. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 06:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it. |
| Message-ID | <3n3tqct0tapioi3545t79e0nde70vnv0lm@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #648458 |
F. Russell wrote: > Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: >> >> If a delusion benefits a kook, he'll go with it, >> even if he, and everyone else, knows it's a delusion. > >Jeff-Ass is the LIVING PROOF of that assertion. > >Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! You can say that again. The Relf kook once described some of his unreadable garbage as "the finest code you'll ever see". -- '(chrisv is) the same dimwit who thinks that determining if software works or not is accomplished through "compile time warnings" and not by actually testing the software.' - trolling fsckwit "Ezekiel", lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:07 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: I'm the best c coder here. |
| Message-ID | <D5D435F0.B4B65%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #648746 |
On 9/5/17, 10:59 AM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Sep.5--10.59am.Seattle.2017,
"<Jeff-Relf.Me @.>" <> wrote:
>
> Speaking of me, you ( ChrisV ) wrote:
>> The Relf kook once described some of his unreadable garbage
>> as "the finest code you'll ever see".
>
> As near as I can tell, I'm the best c coder here.
> I don't recall your Fizz Buzz code, by the way.
> http://Jeff-Relf.Me/FizBuz.HTM
>
> I reduced Owls 43 lines, 74 columns to 5 lines, 71 columns:
>
> char *Say[16] = { "%d", "Fiz", "Buz", "FizBuz", "Goz", "FizGoz",
> "BuzGoz", "FizBuzGoz", "Kaz", "FizKaz", "BuzKaz", "FizBuzKaz",
> "GozKaz", "FizGozKaz", "BuzGozKaz", "FizBuzGozKaz" }; int x = 0 ;
> while ( x++
A count of lines is hardly a good sign of quality... heck, I noted that when
speaking to Marek and noting how my solution was only 17 lines (or
whatever). It was noted to speak to how simple the program is (few lines and
nothing "clever" to keep it short -- could have made it shorter) but not a
sign that it is better than, say, a 50 line solution.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 11:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Michael Glasser is THE UNDISPUTED KING of low SignalToNoise ratios. |
| Message-ID | <D5D43E4E.B4B77%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #648787 |
On 9/5/17, 11:28 AM, in article Jeff-Relf.Me@Sep.5--11.28am.Seattle.2017,
"<Jeff-Relf.Me @.>" <> wrote:
>
> You ( Michael Glasser ) replied:
>>> http://Jeff-Relf.Me/FizBuz.HTM
>>> I reduced Owl's 43 lines, 74 columns to 5 lines, 71 columns:
>>>
>>> char *Say[16] = { "%d", "Fiz", "Buz", "FizBuz", "Goz", "FizGoz",
>>> "BuzGoz", "FizBuzGoz", "Kaz", "FizKaz", "BuzKaz", "FizBuzKaz",
>>> "GozKaz", "FizGozKaz", "BuzGozKaz", "FizBuzGozKaz" }; int x = 0 ;
>>> while ( x++ > printf( Say[ 8*!(x%11) + 4*!(x%7) + 2*!(x%5) + !(x%3)
>>> ], x );
>>
>> A count of lines is hardly a good sign of quality.
>
> My version had a higher SignalToNoise ratio, compared to Owl's.
> You, on the other hand, are
> THE UNDISPUTED KING of low SignalToNoise ratios.
>
> Your "From:" line says it all:
>
> In a "Snit", you flood us with "Galloping Insanity".
>
> From 9/8 to 9/11 last year, 2016, you posted 589 times in 4 days.
> That's almost 150 per day, for 4 straight days, leading up to 9/11.
> "insane", "Galloping", in a "Snit".
>
You just said nothing with a lot of words.
Oh, and my Usenet provider caps me at 100 posts per day... not possible for
me to post what you claimed.
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-03 02:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oofoli$1suj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648426 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > " >> > > It's funny how you say things that are readily apparent in everyday life > are impossible. " > Run that by me, again, Odd. > Coffee-stirring. > Galaxies didn't just get cream poured in them- they've been here for a LONG time. The time scale is irrelevant. What you are seeing in a stirred coffee is very similar to a galaxy: a fluid (not a liquid; a fluid, John) of loosely bound particles exhibiting differential density waves. > HOW is one side of a disc able to rotate slower than the other, again? > Try- really try to THINK, Odd. It's not a solid disc, John. Galaxies are not solid discs. They are rotating fluids, like a cup of coffee. Or if you like another example, sprinkle sawdust on top of a pond and stir the surface with your finger. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 06:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ooit4g$fgu$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648417 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Odd >"So where does the theory say there should be zero difference? Hmmmm? >" >If the discs are rotating in place, But they are not. The disks are a collection of stars, billions of them, each of which orbits the center on its own path. > there should be no difference between one side and the other. >But there is. Even disregarding my statement, there is no reason why there should be no difference. >Your theory doesn't speak to things like that because it has no >explanatory/predictive power. The SM, SR and GR have a lot of predictive power. You simply ignore it. >It is sterile. Still-born. Fudge. Poppycock. A Lie. Because you ignore or disregard most of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 05:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4cfaeaaf-89b8-414f-b1b0-b864ee825656@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648574 |
MM " Even disregarding my statement, there is no reason why there should be no difference." And the reason there is no reason is because you have no model.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oojuem$5ml$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648589 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >" >Even disregarding my statement, there is no reason why there should be >no difference." >And the reason there is no reason is because you have no model. Of course we have a model. We've had a good model for hundreds of years. F=GMm/r^2. Kepler's Laws. Newton's Laws of motion. Since then we have the GR model, but in non-extreme environments, the Newtonian model usually works well enough. You don't even know what a science model even is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 11:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06bf19da-4ec3-443e-826c-596b94bf81e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648605 |
MM "- show quoted text - Of course we have a model. We've had a good model for hundreds of years. F=GMm/r^2. Kepler's Laws. Newton's Laws of motion. Since then we have the GR model, but in non-extreme environments, the Newtonian model usually works well enough. You don't even know what a science model even is. " Then why do you need DM? Then why do you need DE? You have NO IDEA what those things ARE or how they work, if they exist, or how they even RELATE, except that none of your numbers add up without them. I call FUDGE. I call EPICYCLES. I call IDIOTS IN CHARGE (with agendas). TO SAVE YOUR LIFE, if you were asked to draw the atom, you would draw the Bohr model- which is KNOWN to be wrong. Ur a zombie, Mickey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 12:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88b85842-8262-4c50-90cb-f40419b92543@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648619 |
MM "You don't even know what a science model even is. " Here's the Bohr model: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model You see how it's a PICTURE? Where's the model YOU believe? Oh, right, fantasy is hard to picture
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ookpfi$na7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #648626 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"You don't even know what a science model even is. " >Here's the Bohr model: >https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model >You see how it's a PICTURE? First, you do know that the Bohr model has been known to be wrong for about a century, don't you? Second, that model has a lot of math to explain things, but they also show (incorrect) pictures to help explain the model. They still teach it today since it works close enough for students who don't know, or need to know, the ugly math of the Schrödinger model, or the problems with the Bohr model, such as high school chemistry students. >Where's the model YOU believe? Oh, right, fantasy is hard to picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_model You do see they have plenty of explanatory diagrams explaining wave functions and so forth, plus loads of math, but no "picture of an atom". They could have used a picture to explain things, but the model is the ugly math, not a picture.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-05 08:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oom8di$c44$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648626 |
On 9/4/17 2:41 PM, john wrote: > MM > "You don't even know what a science model even is. " > Here's the Bohr model: > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model > You see how it's a PICTURE? > Where's the model YOU believe? Oh, right, fantasy is hard to picture > John, I know it's hard for you, but the model is not the pictures. The model is in those equations further down that cause you mental vapor lock. I would imagine it's pretty hard for you to tackle an article that has no pictures. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-04 15:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ookc2n$1e9t$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648619 |
On 9/4/17 1:16 PM, john wrote: > MM > "- show quoted text - > Of course we have a model. We've had a good model for hundreds of years. > > F=GMm/r^2. > Kepler's Laws. > Newton's Laws of motion. > > Since then we have the GR model, but in non-extreme environments, the > Newtonian model usually works well enough. > > You don't even know what a science model even is. " > > Then why do you need DM? > Then why do you need DE? For the same reason neutrinos were needed. > You have NO IDEA what those things ARE or how they work, if they exist, or how they even RELATE, except that none of your numbers add up without them. > > I call FUDGE. > I call EPICYCLES. > I call IDIOTS IN CHARGE (with agendas). > > TO SAVE YOUR LIFE, if you were asked to draw the atom, you would draw the Bohr model- which is KNOWN to be wrong. > > Ur a zombie, Mickey > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web