Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #701921 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-10 00:27 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-11 02:21 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 66 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 00:27 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 04:00 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:05 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 17:12 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:25 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 17:32 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 11:39 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 19:13 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-10 14:22 -0500
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 13:15 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 21:07 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 18:06 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 21:07 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 18:26 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 02:38 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 02:06 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 11:58 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 07:07 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 07:54 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 17:30 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 17:30 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:03 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 21:35 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 16:39 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 00:35 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 19:12 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 02:14 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 19:38 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 04:31 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 11:02 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 06:53 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 14:47 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 08:22 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 16:19 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 09:48 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 17:43 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 11:07 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 19:18 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 12:34 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 19:50 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 12:58 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 20:56 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 14:04 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 14:26 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 02:13 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 15:29 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 02:42 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 01:26 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2018-09-13 13:08 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 06:36 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 07:33 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 15:30 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 09:18 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-13 17:26 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 10:38 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 13:32 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 21:21 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 14:31 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 01:16 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 18:22 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 02:16 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 01:30 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 12:29 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 19:40 +0000
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 02:25 -0700
Re: The Cycloid-Parabola Wave, to replace all sine and cosine waves of physics poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 02:21 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42806efa-1016-4878-ad23-ee6b9a052a8b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702320 |
MM “>It looks the same as a galaxy. No, it does not. ” Both spherical. Both have central sense nucleus. Both 99% Space, otherwise. Yes it does. Or maybe you and Odd could show me what you think an atom looks like? You’ll never do that, so how can you say it doesn’t look like a galaxy? Where’s the 3rd blind mouse? You two’s buddy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 20:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnbuhs$9k9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702323 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >">It looks the same as a galaxy. >No, it does not. " >Both spherical. Except for the atoms and galaxies which are not. (irregular, non-spherical elliptical and spiral galaxies) >Both have central sense nucleus. It appear spirals do. Not sure if elliptical and irregular ones do. >Both 99% Space, otherwise. OK but so what. >Yes it does. You are 1 for 3 there. >Or maybe you and Odd could show me what you >think an atom looks like? Google Image search for Schrodinger wave function orbitals. >You'll never do that, Again, you are asking me to spoonfeed you, like the baby robins in a nest on top of a stepladder next to a window, last year, demanded. > so how can you say it doesn't look like a galaxy? Go feed yourself and compare Schrodinger orbitals to pictures of galaxies. You might have a claim the 1S probability function looks similar to a globular cluster, but that's it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1ab7b9b-ff5e-4b28-8458-3651c0e27cd5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702327 |
MM “Schrodinger wave function orbitals. ” Are probability math. After infinitely-many entries. They have NOTHING to do with what an atom looks like instantaneously. Show me a picture of what YOU think an atom looks like. You just said you know it doesn’t look like a galaxy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <067e8e51-f75d-4f12-8c2f-81261f0c6729@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702329 |
MM “Go feed yourself and compare Schrodinger orbitals to pictures of galaxies. ” Plus that math says NOTHING about a pathway, so how can you say it’s an orbital? Plug in the numbers again and again and you will get RANDOM spots in your ‘orbital’. How does the electron get there? Where does it go from there? You have NO answers to that. Oh- there’s no pathway? According to you Show me a picture of an atom in the NOW. You won’t because you can’t. Math. Is. Not. Reality. You. Retards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnch3h$eo1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702338 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"Go feed yourself and compare Schrodinger orbitals to pictures of >galaxies. " >Plus that math says NOTHING about a pathway, There is no pathway. You keep thinking of macroscopic little balls. The Schrodinger WAVE equation is a WAVE, not a pathway. > so how can you say it's an orbital? It's an orbitAL, not an orbit. That word is used to describe the 3d wave function/probability distribution, and to distinguish it from an actual orbit like the earth around the sun, and unlike an atom. > Plug in the numbers again and again and you will get RANDOM spots in >your 'orbital'. Go argue with Mr. Heisenberg, who'd tell you your pathway is IMPOSSIBLE. > How does the electron get there? Where does it go from there? You have >NO answers to that. Waves just don't work like that. >Oh- there's no pathway? >According to you According to how waves work. According to Mr. Heisenberg. >Show me a picture of an atom in the NOW. >You won't because you can't. Close your oversized maw and go feed yourself, baby bird!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1622aa43-0fdc-4540-93ed-a5dacbc247c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702327 |
MM “Except for the atoms and galaxies which are not. (irregular, non-spherical elliptical and spiral galaxies) ” Spirals certainly ARE spherical- they have a spherical body of gas which is turning at nearly the rate of their discs and extends another third of the way past their SPHERICAL halo of old globular clusters. Elliptical also have a spherical gas body and a spiral disc. Irregulars ALSO have an underlying spiral disc. Atoms that are reacting are obviously not ‘at rest’, so they are only temporarily non-spherical. They ALL have the underlying flat disc, bro, unless they JUST got impacted. You guys are so DIFFICULT (capitalized, I actually mean you’re retarded.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnciqv$q93$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702353 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >Spirals certainly ARE spherical- they have a spherical body of gas which >is turning at nearly the rate of their discs and extends another third of >the way past their SPHERICAL halo of old globular clusters. Umm, most of the galaxy is the disk. There is a good sized sphere around the center. Oh, you must mean the dark matter! Yes, it is theorized that the dark matter of spherical galaxies (most of their mass) IS spherically distributed! Congratulations on finally finding a 6 year old who didn't run away, who explained "invisible heavy stuff" to you! >Elliptical also have a spherical gas body and a spiral disc. Umm, no. No spiral disk (otherwise they'd be spirals, not ellipticals!) and ellipticals are elliptical, not spheres. (ok, "ellipticals" would also include any that are actually spherical as a subset) >Irregulars ALSO have an underlying spiral disc. Then they'd be spirals, not irregulars. Irregulars are, er, irregular. And you changed your argument, I thought you were claiming all galaxies were spheres, not spirals. Oh speaking of spirals, look at time lapse photos of Hurricane Florence. (no, go find it yourself!). Notice the spin, the eye in particular. The inner part rotates rapidly (that's where the worst winds are) and the further out from the eye the slower it rotates. In particular, it does NOT rotate as a unit. Just like a spiral galaxy. Explain how anything like that could get all retarded and precess in a 2:1 ratio. Impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 01:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b89f9a92-52b0-408e-8de5-7a20885cf771@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702387 |
MM “Umm, most of the galaxy is the disk.” Right. And the other 99% is diffuse gas and a shell of old globular clusters. LIKE ATOMS, galaxies are spheres that are mostly empty. Keep up, Michael- ellipticals AND irregulars are BOTH seen to have spiral structures and are now being recognized as such.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pndnh5$gsr$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702419 |
>"Umm, most of the galaxy is the disk." >Right. Yes, that is right, but once you include the spherically distributed dark matter, then you DO become more correct. So I am glad you now believe in dark matter! >Keep up, Michael- ellipticals AND irregulars are BOTH seen to have spiral >structures and are now being recognized as such. You lie, John, why do you lie? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irregular_galaxy : "An irregular galaxy is a galaxy that does not have a distinct regular shape, unlike a spiral or an elliptical galaxy.[1] Irregular galaxies do not fall into any of the regular classes of the Hubble sequence, and they are often chaotic in appearance, with neither a nuclear bulge nor any trace of spiral arm structure.[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptical_galaxy : "An elliptical galaxy is a type of galaxy having an approximately ellipsoidal shape and a smooth, nearly featureless image. Unlike flat spiral galaxies with organization and structure, elliptical galaxies are more three-dimensional, without much structure, and their stars are in somewhat random orbits around the center." See that bit about "nearly featureless"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 06:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <69b0253f-11da-40c5-ac9e-ddeeca83f77e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702440 |
MM “Keep up, Michael- ellipticals AND irregulars are BOTH seen to have spiral >structures and are now being recognized as such. You lie, John, why do you lie? ” I said “keep up”. That doesn’t mean look in an encyclopedia. That means listening to new findings. Search deeper Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a83dbc7c-32bb-4f89-a5ad-295b887ec702@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702443 |
MM “You lie, John, why do you lie? ” Irregulars also have the spherical halo, Michael- so, basically a sphere that’s disorganized inside. New findings HAVE shown evidence of spiral arms- I’ll find it again for you since you and Odd don’t seem to follow new developments (head, sand)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pndvqq$q90$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702443 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"Keep up, Michael- ellipticals AND irregulars are BOTH seen to have > spiral >>structures and are now being recognized as such. >You lie, John, why do you lie? >" >I said "keep up". Umm, you are the one who refuses to look at science articles/books that explain all the stuff you ask about. Instead, you smoke the latest from "Little Pharma" and hallucinate about spinny things and claim that's what really happens. Or just claim something's wrong but never give a reason why it's wrong. >That doesn't mean look in an encyclopedia. >That means listening to new findings. >Search deeper Michael You first. Give some references to your claims, and that does not mean 1 or 2 examples of some transitional galaxies in an intermediate state. I do keep up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 09:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c7958582-7701-46fe-9fb8-93bc917ae718@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702457 |
MM “I do keep up.” Well then, you already know this: https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irregular-galaxies-current-dark.amp ‘ ‘Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter," said David Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the research. "The relation discovered by McGaugh et al. is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are precisely determined by the distribution of the normal matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 17:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pne6kg$da1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702464 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes: >MM >"I do keep up." >Well then, you already know this: >https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-09-spiral-irregular-galaxies-current-dark.amp >" >"Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been explained via an ad hoc >hypothesis: that galaxies are surrounded by dark matter," said David >Merritt, professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester Institute of >Technology, who was not involved in the research. Where is your claim that irregular and elliptical galaxies have spirals? That's what we were talking about. This article is about dark matter. Do you have ADHD or something, and just can't follow along? Regardless, what they are saying that the common model to estimate visible mass is incorrect and this model gets it correct without the need for dark matter, as it gets the mass that matches galaxy rotation curves. Not a problem. Remember what Odd tried to tell you, the mismatch between the galactic rotation curves and the mass estimates meant one of two things: 1) The model of gravity is wrong at that scale; or 2) Our mass estimate model for galaxies was wrong, more mass was needed. Dark matter was because of 2), the mass we saw was not enough. A bunch of invisible heavy stuff seemed to be needed to match rotation curves. This article also agrees with 2), but what it says is a DIFFERENT model for mass in galaxies produced results that matches rotation curves, and does so WITHOUT needing any invisible heavy stuff added. According to it, dark matter isn't necessary. That's how real science works, John. A possible better model is found. The possible better model eliminates the need for dark matter, which was problematic since we couldn't find it/figure out what it was. It is interesting to note that this is a two year old article, and the seeming lack of followups may indicate this is a false alarm, or maybe not. Also, if you accept this article, it means you accept standard gravity theory. It's good that you finally kicked that silly LeSage gravity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 10:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5c995cf-1a9b-4ae1-90b0-be50eb019181@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702480 |
MM “It's good that you finally kicked that silly LeSage gravity. ” I didn’t. Dark Matter is refuted by these results. LeSage Gravity will prove to be correct. I guess you can’t read- this proves that Standard Model is incorrect. Suck. It. Up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 13:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76d3972d-5b4b-4c66-9451-fc73e671ace5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702320 |
MM “because they look the same. (despite the fact that they d” Well, then, Michael, why don’t you and Odd just show me a picture of what you think an atom looks like?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnc014$f78$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #702325 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > MM > “because they look the same. (despite the fact that they d” > > Well, then, Michael, why don’t you and Odd just show me a picture of what > you think an atom looks like? > How many times will this take, John? I mean, if you’re like Seto and can’t remember from one week to the next, maybe it’s time for assisted living. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 14:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6e734fc-5f56-42fc-9f47-6998cb0a7b5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702335 |
Odd “How many times will this take, Joh” You got nothing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 01:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pncdq4$1430$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #702339 |
john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote: > Odd > “How many times will this take, Joh” > > You got nothing > Geez John. You find more ways to clamp your eyes over things you don’t want to see. Some one says “Here’s the solution”, you say “No MATH! Math is bad! Show me picture!” Someone shows you a picture and you say “Bad picture! Picture doesn’t show trajectories! Show me picture with trajectory!” -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 18:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f7f905e-c6ad-46d2-9775-d7c9307e4185@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702373 |
Odd “Geez John. “ Geez, Odd, I say galaxies look like atoms. You say no they don’t. I say what do atoms look like. You never answer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web