Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647822 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-29 18:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-13 15:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 146 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 18:46 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 20:57 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 21:07 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:32 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 22:39 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-02 10:17 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-03 00:07 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 09:20 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 15:15 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-06 18:41 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:49 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-06 23:00 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 00:24 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 21:42 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 00:11 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 06:01 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 06:18 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 06:55 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:03 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:35 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-07 19:40 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 01:26 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 12:55 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 18:26 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-07 22:00 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 15:57 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-08 21:11 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 15:43 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 20:35 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 09:16 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 12:15 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 12:52 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-08 13:19 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-08 18:56 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 19:01 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 07:23 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "Zen Pride Week" <scopeflenser@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 13:10 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 00:05 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 06:04 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 17:39 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 18:47 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 22:40 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 06:53 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 19:01 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 12:45 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 16:26 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 15:55 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 20:24 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:48 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 17:23 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:06 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 18:22 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:51 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 22:25 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-12 21:57 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 04:44 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-13 13:44 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 17:39 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-13 21:15 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-13 20:16 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-13 17:20 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-13 15:06 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-13 19:25 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 22:22 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 20:39 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:27 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 22:18 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 19:22 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 22:29 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 17:08 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-13 20:50 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 18:25 -0700
Re: More on the .... explain life... "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-14 09:01 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 15:45 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 13:11 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 17:50 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 18:01 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 19:09 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-06 19:50 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 00:14 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-07 09:50 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 05:21 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-09 09:30 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 17:41 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-09 18:32 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 20:37 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-09 19:54 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 19:12 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 17:04 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-09 19:59 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 09:02 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-06 23:16 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 00:25 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-07 12:44 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 06:07 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 23:35 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-09 09:45 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 18:00 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 19:19 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 20:26 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-11 17:29 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 15:46 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-11 18:57 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 16:05 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-09 17:14 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 19:46 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-11 17:21 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 15:43 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-11 19:03 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 17:14 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-11 17:33 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 18:15 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-11 20:12 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-11 20:53 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-12 15:29 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 16:51 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:57 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 23:15 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:28 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-09 00:02 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:24 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 06:48 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-11 11:17 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 15:17 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:36 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 15:18 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-11 15:31 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 17:37 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-11 18:00 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:26 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 15:42 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:09 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:33 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 20:26 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 17:38 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-11 18:45 -0400
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 15:53 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-11 19:08 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:25 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 13:40 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-09-06 12:56 -0500
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 14:47 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space hanson <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-06 15:30 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:15 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 13:27 -0700
Re: More on the infinite divisibility of matter to explain life and no gas in deep space "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-09-13 15:03 -0700
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 12:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oopcuu$ek$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #648361 |
On 9/2/2017 3:40 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:39:41 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 3:32:11 PM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 12:07:30 AM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:57:08 PM UTC+10, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 3:28:39 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: >>>>>>> [] >>>>>>>> My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the >>>>>>>> same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you claiming Xenon atoms are a different size as a gas >>>>>>> then they are sitting on a chilled nickel plate? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting that a gas atom or molecule >>>>>> becomes bigger or smaller with concentration or dilution, the hypothesis >>>>>> being that the concentration of moving atoms/molecules in any volume has to >>>>>> remain constant. >>>>>> >>>>>> From the above, the answer to your question is, yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> You claim to be an experienced and accomplished engineer. >>>>>> >>>>>> True. Now that's a claim. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you propose a test showing the size of atoms changes? >>>>>> >>>>>> At the moment, no. I don't have the means of estimating the size of a >>>>>> singular atom in a gas with a certain pressure. Nor can I think of any method >>>>>> that will satisfy myself. >>>>>> >>>>>> I look at outer space and find no gas particles. There is nothing there except >>>>>> some solids like asteroids and stars and planets plus meteors and comets. >>>>>> >>>>>> So gas cannot survive in outer space. It subdivides to zero or aether, >>>>>> depending upon point of view, going by my hypothesis. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Every test I mentioned shows atoms do not changes size, >>>>>>> meaning, spatial dimensions or inertial mass or charge. >>>>>> >>>>>> No doubt, they were done under the same set of conditions, as any decent >>>>>> experiment should be. If so, the above does not prove anything one way or the >>>>>> other. >>>>>> >>>>>> Under the same set of conditions, they would exhibit same results. >>>>>> Point is, no one thought that atoms could subdivide as per *non-atomic theory* >>>>>> of matter which while acknowledging the elements and their properties add that >>>>>> there is no minimum size to matter - meaning that the atomic size as we know >>>>>> it could get smaller, or rather, it jolly well will get smaller depending upon >>>>>> circumstances. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just as the non-atomic theory about the infinite divisibility of matter which >>>>>> is by no means a new idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> One must remember, that non-atomic theory only says on top of atomic theory >>>>>> is that there is no minimum size or put another way Avogadro's Number is >>>>>> infinity. I am adding that under certain circumstances such as solution big >>>>>> atoms divide to form more numbers of smaller atoms. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Please, I am not even asking for the experimental results >>>>>>> yet. Just describe under what condition does an atom will >>>>>>> change size (and what size properties are affected). >>>>>> >>>>>> I am suggesting that when cells multiply, we need to know exactly what is >>>>>> happening. How does the material in the cell grow to become two identical >>>>>> cells? Is there an increase of mass in the process? What are the masses of >>>>>> the two divided cells with respect to the original cell? Is there a change? >>>>>> What is the impact of putting more solution in the cell division process? >>>>>> Can we show if some saline or other input in the solution impacts upon the >>>>>> cell division process? Can we agree that prior to division the number of molecules in the cell was twice the number it was when it was formed? Can we >>>>>> track this increase of numbers in the individual live cell? In that process, >>>>>> can we show that a molecule is halving itself? Can we show that after halving >>>>>> itself it is regaining its original weight from somewhere - like say aether? >>>>>> >>>>>> We have to investigate with live cells here and not dead cells. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't suppose the above experiments will be very easy to do, and I for one >>>>>> would much rather work to make an internal force engine based upon >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws >>>>>> IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without any real >>>>>>> progress in learning. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is unkind and also ridiculous. One can make theories is science without >>>>>> being forced to suggest experiments to prove them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Theories are about explanations of nature, based upon observations - >>>>>> they could be correct, or not. Science is not a one-man job. If someone is >>>>>> interested in any theory, it is for him or her to take it up no matter who >>>>>> initiated it. Science is for everyone, but who will tell that to the >>>>>> bullying racist+bigots, except >>>>>> >>>>>> Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole >>>>>> god among lotsa devils. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ed >>>>> >>>>> Lots of gas in space proven by all we see.#1 stars >>>>> #2 Nebular #3 gas dust and hydrogen to make ring layers >>>>> around Milky Way Our solar system is in the third outer ring.Trebert >>>> >>>> In deep space there is no gas. >>> >>> Bzzt, wrong. The gas has been observed. >>> Remember spectral lines which are used to identify the elements? >>> We observe the gaseous forms in our own solar system as well as >>> in our galaxy and in our galactic neighborhood. >> >> Not in deep space. >> You simply cannot find gas in deep space. > > So you have been there and tested this? > Amusing. > >> Near nebulas or sun's atmosphere, or around the planets. >> But they are contained in those gravity spaces. > > So how does the nebula form? where does the gravity comes from? > Where did the gas in the nebula come from? > (I expect you to propose essentially a static universe. > Yet another answer that is contradicted by current data.) >> >> In fact, the fact that gas molecules do not exist in deep space means that >> it is possible that they cannot exist in deep space. > > False logic. >> >> They become smaller and smaller and then vanish into aether to become part of >> aether. > Demonstrate this smaller and smaller process. >> >> Now this is a theory to explain why in space there are no free gases going >> around. Only solids and radiation. The gases are held to the solids by gravity. > > Do you know the word sublimation?? >> >> Now comets start losing their tails - this means that the tails tailed off into >> outer space and then the atoms or molecules started getting eaten up >> (figuratively) by the aether till nothing was left of the tail except the parts >> near to the core. >> >> Hmm, so the loss of comet tail is also explained. > > You are drowning and grasping at anything you can. >> >> Not that I am really keen on this theory but well, it is a good diversion from >> my main effort to make motors out of rail guns. >> >> Cheers, >> Arindam Banerjee > > I think you are off the rails. > Ed > yea, he made a several blunt assumptions and that has lead him way off into the far remote hinterlands of YesterLore
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 14:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6053f662-dfd0-40c5-a50f-6d65c969ed96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #648279 |
On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 8:57:08 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 3:28:39 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > [] > > > > My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the > > > > same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom? > > > > > > Are you claiming Xenon atoms are a different size as a gas > > > then they are sitting on a chilled nickel plate? > > > > I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting that a gas atom or molecule > > becomes bigger or smaller with concentration or dilution, the hypothesis > > being that the concentration of moving atoms/molecules in any volume has to > > remain constant. > > > > From the above, the answer to your question is, yes. > > > > > You claim to be an experienced and accomplished engineer. > > > > True. Now that's a claim. > > > > > Can you propose a test showing the size of atoms changes? > > > > At the moment, no. I don't have the means of estimating the size of a > > singular atom in a gas with a certain pressure. Nor can I think of any method > > that will satisfy myself. > > > > I look at outer space and find no gas particles. There is nothing there except > > some solids like asteroids and stars and planets plus meteors and comets. > > > > So gas cannot survive in outer space. It subdivides to zero or aether, > > depending upon point of view, going by my hypothesis. > > > > > Every test I mentioned shows atoms do not changes size, > > > meaning, spatial dimensions or inertial mass or charge. > > > > No doubt, they were done under the same set of conditions, as any decent > > experiment should be. If so, the above does not prove anything one way or the > > other. > > > > Under the same set of conditions, they would exhibit same results. > > Point is, no one thought that atoms could subdivide as per *non-atomic theory* > > of matter which while acknowledging the elements and their properties add that > > there is no minimum size to matter - meaning that the atomic size as we know > > it could get smaller, or rather, it jolly well will get smaller depending upon > > circumstances. > > > > Just as the non-atomic theory about the infinite divisibility of matter which > > is by no means a new idea. > > > > One must remember, that non-atomic theory only says on top of atomic theory > > is that there is no minimum size or put another way Avogadro's Number is > > infinity. I am adding that under certain circumstances such as solution big > > atoms divide to form more numbers of smaller atoms. > > > > > Please, I am not even asking for the experimental results > > > yet. Just describe under what condition does an atom will > > > change size (and what size properties are affected). > > > > I am suggesting that when cells multiply, we need to know exactly what is > > happening. How does the material in the cell grow to become two identical > > cells? Is there an increase of mass in the process? What are the masses of > > the two divided cells with respect to the original cell? Is there a change? > > What is the impact of putting more solution in the cell division process? > > Can we show if some saline or other input in the solution impacts upon the > > cell division process? Can we agree that prior to division the number of molecules in the cell was twice the number it was when it was formed? Can we > > track this increase of numbers in the individual live cell? In that process, > > can we show that a molecule is halving itself? Can we show that after halving > > itself it is regaining its original weight from somewhere - like say aether? > > > > We have to investigate with live cells here and not dead cells. > > > > I don't suppose the above experiments will be very easy to do, and I for one > > would much rather work to make an internal force engine based upon > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > > > > Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without any real > > > progress in learning. > > > > This is unkind and also ridiculous. One can make theories is science without > > being forced to suggest experiments to prove them. > > > > Theories are about explanations of nature, based upon observations - > > they could be correct, or not. Science is not a one-man job. If someone is > > interested in any theory, it is for him or her to take it up no matter who > > initiated it. Science is for everyone, but who will tell that to the > > bullying racist+bigots, except > > > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > > god among lotsa devils. > > > > > Ed > > Lots of gas in space proven by all we see.#1 stars #2 Nebular #3 gas dust and hydrogen to make ring layers around Milky Way Our solar system is in the third outer ring.Trebert You can not see hydrogen and that gas is everywhere.Its 99% more than all that is.It is deep in deep space.When universes end their ghost is hydrogen I will do a post on his ghost soon.TreBert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hanson <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 15:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oopsv6$16ve$1@adenine.netfront.net> |
| In reply to | #648960 |
On 09/06/2017 02:47 PM, reber G=emc^2 wrote: "When universes end their ghost is hydrogen I will do a post on his ghost soon", given that > <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "OK I'm lying.at 89 That is reality at my age."... & now Bert just lied again since he lied for the past 89 years, habitually and compulsively. The underlying reason for that is that Glazier is an Ashkenazi > kike, who shows signs of multiple & advanced genetic Jew diseases like (1) Tay-Sachs Disease which made him deaf, (2) Familial Dysautonomia which causes Glazier's' sensory nervous systems to malfunction, (3) Bloom Syndrome which gave Bert his short stature & (4) Fanconi anemia - Type C that gave Glazier his learning difficulties & mental retardation. > These maladies are present in 1 of 25 his ilk. It's effects & symptoms are manifest in that Bert got kicked out of school in the 4th grade, and it is seen in every post of Bert, like when Bert brags to be > _______ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim________ > with <http://tinyurl.com/SwineBert-s-WRONG-Predictions> & being <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>, who is <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> doing this <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>, as he waits for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker> but refuses <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve> & then <http://tinyurl.com/Jew-Swine-Glazier-cries> as seen in his <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017> which "it's tricky", Bert says, but "it fits" & "it's on the money". "Go Figure" 3.9 ----------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-06 16:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <930109b0-3280-4896-8e2b-cf51ddbde03e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647822 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 9:46:28 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 3:28:39 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > [] > > > My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the > > > same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom? > > > > Are you claiming Xenon atoms are a different size as a gas > > then they are sitting on a chilled nickel plate? > > I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting that a gas atom or molecule > becomes bigger or smaller with concentration or dilution, the hypothesis > being that the concentration of moving atoms/molecules in any volume has to > remain constant. > > From the above, the answer to your question is, yes. Measurements please? Your own or other published data? > > > You claim to be an experienced and accomplished engineer. > > True. Now that's a claim. > > > Can you propose a test showing the size of atoms changes? > > At the moment, no. I don't have the means of estimating the size of a > singular atom in a gas with a certain pressure. Nor can I think of any method > that will satisfy myself. But to support this theory, it is not you that needs to be convinced. Right now I know of no physicists that would even consider such a theory because all the data available point to same size. > > I look at outer space and find no gas particles. Do you have super vision that can see atoms from hundreds of miles away? > There is nothing there except > some solids like asteroids and stars and planets plus meteors and comets. Nonsense. we measure the solar wind continually. and all those atoms strike the detectors with masses the same as on earth. > > So gas cannot survive in outer space. It subdivides to zero or aether, > depending upon point of view, going by my hypothesis. But all available data indicates this hypothesis is wrong. > > > Every test I mentioned shows atoms do not changes size, > > meaning, spatial dimensions or inertial mass or charge. > > No doubt, they were done under the same set of conditions, as any decent > experiment should be. If so, the above does not prove anything one way or the > other. Tests in vacuum in particle accelerators and other systems. tests by chemists for a few hundred years, never showing atoms duplicating or changing size. Different solution concentrations, different solvents, solids, liquids, gases, mixed in many ways. NONE show any indication of atoms of the same element with different size (whether that size is spatial size or mass). > > Under the same set of conditions, they would exhibit same results. > Point is, no one thought that atoms could subdivide as per *non-atomic theory* > of matter which while acknowledging the elements and their properties add that > there is no minimum size to matter - meaning that the atomic size as we know > it could get smaller, or rather, it jolly well will get smaller depending upon > circumstances. > > Just as the non-atomic theory about the infinite divisibility of matter which > is by no means a new idea. You claim to be an electrical engineer. Clearly in your education and experience you failed to learn any chemistry or physics. This idea has been tested MANY times. The atomic theory was found to explain an abundance of data in chemistry and physics. This idea was found lacking and was rejected long ago. > > One must remember, that non-atomic theory only says on top of atomic theory > is that there is no minimum size or put another way Avogadro's Number is > infinity. I am adding that under certain circumstances such as solution big > atoms divide to form more numbers of smaller atoms. And there is no data to support that thesis. > > > Please, I am not even asking for the experimental results > > yet. Just describe under what condition does an atom will > > change size (and what size properties are affected). > > I am suggesting that when cells multiply, we need to know exactly what is > happening. How does the material in the cell grow to become two identical > cells? Is there an increase of mass in the process? What are the masses of > the two divided cells with respect to the original cell? Is there a change? > What is the impact of putting more solution in the cell division process? > Can we show if some saline or other input in the solution impacts upon the > cell division process? Can we agree that prior to division the number of molecules in the cell was twice the number it was when it was formed? Can we > track this increase of numbers in the individual live cell? In that process, > can we show that a molecule is halving itself? Can we show that after halving > itself it is regaining its original weight from somewhere - like say aether? > > We have to investigate with live cells here and not dead cells. That is a clear sign of a failed theory, you end up giving contraadictory conditions: 1. The action happens in living cells, not dead. 2. The action happens in space. 3. The action happens in solutions of water. Clearly, condition 1 and 3 contradict each other directly. [spam snipped] > > > Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without any real > > progress in learning. > > This is unkind and also ridiculous. One can make theories is science without > being forced to suggest experiments to prove them. I take this to mean either you cannot conceive of a supporting experiment or you consider this just fiction for discussion but not real science. Maybe you are learning after all. > > Theories are about explanations of nature, based upon observations - > they could be correct, or not. Science is not a one-man job. If someone is > interested in any theory, it is for him or her to take it up no matter who > initiated it. Science is for everyone, but who will tell that to the > bullying racist+bigots, except > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > god among lotsa devils. > I'm merely pointing out the contradictions between known experimental data and this hypothesis so others don't waste their time on failed ideas. I thought with your level of self confidence, you would be able to accept the truth when pointed out to you. Clearly I was wrong. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d07403e-2f43-49c8-bde6-9a478a7518bd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647822 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 6:46:28 PM UTC-7, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 3:28:39 AM UTC+10, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-4, Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > [] > > > My question is can you see the gas molecule and measure its size with the > > > same kind of equipment IBM used to show us an atom? > > > > Are you claiming Xenon atoms are a different size as a gas > > then they are sitting on a chilled nickel plate? > > I am not claiming anything. I am suggesting that a gas atom or molecule > becomes bigger or smaller with concentration or dilution, the hypothesis > being that the concentration of moving atoms/molecules in any volume has to > remain constant. > > From the above, the answer to your question is, yes. > > > You claim to be an experienced and accomplished engineer. > > True. Now that's a claim. > > > Can you propose a test showing the size of atoms changes? > > At the moment, no. I don't have the means of estimating the size of a > singular atom in a gas with a certain pressure. Nor can I think of any method > that will satisfy myself. > > I look at outer space and find no gas particles. There is nothing there except > some solids like asteroids and stars and planets plus meteors and comets. > > So gas cannot survive in outer space. It subdivides to zero or aether, > depending upon point of view, going by my hypothesis. > > > Every test I mentioned shows atoms do not changes size, > > meaning, spatial dimensions or inertial mass or charge. > > No doubt, they were done under the same set of conditions, as any decent > experiment should be. If so, the above does not prove anything one way or the > other. > > Under the same set of conditions, they would exhibit same results. > Point is, no one thought that atoms could subdivide as per *non-atomic theory* > of matter which while acknowledging the elements and their properties add that > there is no minimum size to matter - meaning that the atomic size as we know > it could get smaller, or rather, it jolly well will get smaller depending upon > circumstances. > > Just as the non-atomic theory about the infinite divisibility of matter which > is by no means a new idea. > > One must remember, that non-atomic theory only says on top of atomic theory > is that there is no minimum size or put another way Avogadro's Number is > infinity. I am adding that under certain circumstances such as solution big > atoms divide to form more numbers of smaller atoms. > > > Please, I am not even asking for the experimental results > > yet. Just describe under what condition does an atom will > > change size (and what size properties are affected). > > I am suggesting that when cells multiply, we need to know exactly what is > happening. How does the material in the cell grow to become two identical > cells? Is there an increase of mass in the process? What are the masses of > the two divided cells with respect to the original cell? Is there a change? > What is the impact of putting more solution in the cell division process? > Can we show if some saline or other input in the solution impacts upon the > cell division process? Can we agree that prior to division the number of molecules in the cell was twice the number it was when it was formed? Can we > track this increase of numbers in the individual live cell? In that process, > can we show that a molecule is halving itself? Can we show that after halving > itself it is regaining its original weight from somewhere - like say aether? > > We have to investigate with live cells here and not dead cells. > > I don't suppose the above experiments will be very easy to do, and I for one > would much rather work to make an internal force engine based upon > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws > IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship > > > > Otherwise you are just blowing smoke without any real > > progress in learning. > > This is unkind and also ridiculous. One can make theories is science without > being forced to suggest experiments to prove them. > > Theories are about explanations of nature, based upon observations - > they could be correct, or not. Science is not a one-man job. If someone is > interested in any theory, it is for him or her to take it up no matter who > initiated it. Science is for everyone, but who will tell that to the > bullying racist+bigots, except > > Arindam (bin Einstein ban Gandi) Banerjee, greatest genius of all time, sole > god among lotsa devils. > > > Ed The Eagle Nebular is gas and dust.It is still building stars. I have a theory that its this gas that is the missing gravity.Best to think space has a gas molecule every square inch.Nobel thinking again.Or should I say "STILL" Trebert
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-13 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <opca08$bkq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #649814 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote: "I have a theory that its this gas that is the missing gravity. Best to think space has a gas molecule every square inch. No-belch thinking again.Or should I say I "STILL" am > _______ Glazier, the Turd-man of Anaheim________ > with <http://tinyurl.com/SwineBert-s-WRONG-Predictions> & being <http://tinyurl.com/Loudmouth-Glazier-8Feb2017>, who is <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> doing this <http://pbs.twimg.com/media/A8MGOU-CQAEaZw4.jpg>, as he waits for <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-Undertaker> but refuses <http://tinyurl.com/Herbert-Glazier-s-Reprieve> & then <http://tinyurl.com/Jew-Swine-Glazier-cries> as seen in his <http://tinyurl.com/Blog-of-2-fecal-kikes-Mar2017> by <http://tinyurl.com/Glazier-the-loud-retarded-pig> who said "it's tricky", but "it fits" & "it's on the money". "Go Figure"
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web