Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #705615 > unrolled thread

Light's a sphere

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 10:51 -0700
    Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 15:50 -0700
      Re: Light's a sphere Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-01 16:06 -0700
      Re: Light's a sphere pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 16:29 -0700
        Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 17:24 -0700
          Re: Light's a sphere pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 18:22 -0700
            Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 20:52 -0700
              Re: Light's a sphere pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 21:06 -0700
                Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 21:33 -0700
                  Re: Light's a sphere pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-01 21:57 -0700
                    Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 12:44 -0700
                      Re: Light's a sphere pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-10-02 22:50 -0700
                        Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 01:11 -0700
                          Re: Light's a sphere moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 12:49 +0000
                            Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-03 12:42 -0700
                              Re: Light's a sphere moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 20:06 +0000
                                Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:22 -0700
                                  Re: Light's a sphere "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:47 -0700
      Re: Light's a sphere "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 18:24 -0700
        Re: Light's a sphere "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:03 -0700
          Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-04 10:24 -0700
            Re: Light's a sphere "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:00 -0700
              Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-05 22:27 -0700
                Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 01:16 -0700
                  Re: Light's a sphere poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 02:46 -0700
                    Re: Light's a sphere Musatov <tomusatov@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 06:40 -0700
                      Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-06 10:36 -0700
                        Re: Light's a sphere "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-10 14:55 -0700
                          Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-10 20:17 -0700
                          Re: Light's a sphere Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-11 14:00 -0700
                            Re: Light's a sphere "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-11 18:52 -0700
                              Re: Light's a sphere mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-10-11 22:36 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#705615 — Light's a sphere

Einstein changed from his light particle to a spherical wavelet in 1937.
He said he could not reconcile a particle nature with the wave. He did
not believe in QM...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#705689

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein changed from his light particle to a spherical wavelet in 1937.
> He said he could not reconcile a particle nature with the wave. He did
> not believe in QM...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705695

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Einstein changed from his light particle to a spherical wavelet in 1937.
> > He said he could not reconcile a particle nature with the wave. He did
> > not believe in QM...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...


Bull crap!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705701

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...

Wrong,  Mitch.

Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705714

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> 
> Wrong,  Mitch.
> 
> Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?

You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.

I challenge you.
Weight science is new...
Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...

Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
stacking neutron to neutron...

Let's see what you have to say PNUT...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705720

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> > 
> > Wrong,  Mitch.
> > 
> > Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?
> 
> You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
> and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.
> 
> I challenge you.
> Weight science is new...
> Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
> The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
> by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
> point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...
> 
> Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
> stacking neutron to neutron...
> 
> Let's see what you have to say PNUT...

I've already said it, Mitch... where is your evidence?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705764

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> > > 
> > > Wrong,  Mitch.
> > > 
> > > Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?
> > 
> > You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
> > and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.
> > 
> > I challenge you.
> > Weight science is new...
> > Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
> > The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
> > by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
> > point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...
> > 
> > Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
> > stacking neutron to neutron...
> > 
> > Let's see what you have to say PNUT...
> 
> I've already said it, Mitch... where is your evidence?

You have said nothing but I am wrong... and that ain't
enough PNUT... 
Where is weight as you have said it manifesting?
Weight is where the solid surfaces are.
Evidence you can't refute...
It requires a solid atomic surface for atoms
to stack and convey weight to the center of
the Earth. Neutrons have solid wave surfaces
just like the atoms. Atoms and neutrons stack
for Earth and Neutron stars weight.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705768

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 8:52:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> > > > 
> > > > Wrong,  Mitch.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?
> > > 
> > > You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
> > > and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.
> > > 
> > > I challenge you.
> > > Weight science is new...
> > > Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
> > > The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
> > > by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
> > > point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...
> > > 
> > > Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
> > > stacking neutron to neutron...
> > > 
> > > Let's see what you have to say PNUT...
> > 
> > I've already said it, Mitch... where is your evidence?
> 
> You have said nothing but I am wrong... and that ain't
> enough PNUT... 

I didn't say you were wrong, Mitch, but I did ask for you to present your evidence. Is that too hard for you? No evidence, no theory. End of discussion.

> Where is weight as you have said it manifesting?
> Weight is where the solid surfaces are.
> Evidence you can't refute...

What evidence is that, Mitch? you've presented zero evidence.

> It requires a solid atomic surface for atoms
> to stack and convey weight to the center of
> the Earth. 

Evidence for this claim?

> Neutrons have solid wave surfaces
> just like the atoms. Atoms and neutrons stack
> for Earth and Neutron stars weight.

Evidence for this claim?

No, Mitch, I call bullshit all the way. You need to provide evidence for your crazy statements, that is how science works, after all. You make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. Just like every other scientist in the face of the Earth. Every one of them. Do you get a pass for some obscure reason?

Provide the evidence or go away in shame. Your call.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705779

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:06:26 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 8:52:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Wrong,  Mitch.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?
> > > > 
> > > > You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
> > > > and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.
> > > > 
> > > > I challenge you.
> > > > Weight science is new...
> > > > Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
> > > > The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
> > > > by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
> > > > point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...
> > > > 
> > > > Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
> > > > stacking neutron to neutron...
> > > > 
> > > > Let's see what you have to say PNUT...
> > > 
> > > I've already said it, Mitch... where is your evidence?
> > 
> > You have said nothing but I am wrong... and that ain't
> > enough PNUT... 
> 
> I didn't say you were wrong, Mitch, but I did ask for you to present your evidence. Is that too hard for you? No evidence, no theory. End of discussion.
> 
> > Where is weight as you have said it manifesting?
> > Weight is where the solid surfaces are.
> > Evidence you can't refute...
> 
> What evidence is that, Mitch? you've presented zero evidence.
> 
> > It requires a solid atomic surface for atoms
> > to stack and convey weight to the center of
> > the Earth. 
> 
> Evidence for this claim?
> 
> > Neutrons have solid wave surfaces
> > just like the atoms. Atoms and neutrons stack
> > for Earth and Neutron stars weight.
> 
> Evidence for this claim?
> 
> No, Mitch, I call bullshit all the way. You need to provide evidence for your crazy statements, that is how science works, after all. You make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. Just like every other scientist in the face of the Earth. Every one of them. Do you get a pass for some obscure reason?
> 
> Provide the evidence or go away in shame. Your call.

Oh Really PNUT?
The evidence is atoms stack... neutrons stack in neutron stars.
Refute that evidence then...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705788

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:33:22 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:06:26 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 8:52:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Wrong,  Mitch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?
> > > > > 
> > > > > You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
> > > > > and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I challenge you.
> > > > > Weight science is new...
> > > > > Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
> > > > > The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
> > > > > by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
> > > > > point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
> > > > > stacking neutron to neutron...
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's see what you have to say PNUT...
> > > > 
> > > > I've already said it, Mitch... where is your evidence?
> > > 
> > > You have said nothing but I am wrong... and that ain't
> > > enough PNUT... 
> > 
> > I didn't say you were wrong, Mitch, but I did ask for you to present your evidence. Is that too hard for you? No evidence, no theory. End of discussion.
> > 
> > > Where is weight as you have said it manifesting?
> > > Weight is where the solid surfaces are.
> > > Evidence you can't refute...
> > 
> > What evidence is that, Mitch? you've presented zero evidence.
> > 
> > > It requires a solid atomic surface for atoms
> > > to stack and convey weight to the center of
> > > the Earth. 
> > 
> > Evidence for this claim?
> > 
> > > Neutrons have solid wave surfaces
> > > just like the atoms. Atoms and neutrons stack
> > > for Earth and Neutron stars weight.
> > 
> > Evidence for this claim?
> > 
> > No, Mitch, I call bullshit all the way. You need to provide evidence for your crazy statements, that is how science works, after all. You make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. Just like every other scientist in the face of the Earth. Every one of them. Do you get a pass for some obscure reason?
> > 
> > Provide the evidence or go away in shame. Your call.
> 
> Oh Really PNUT?
> The evidence is atoms stack... neutrons stack in neutron stars.
> Refute that evidence then...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

WHAT EVIDENCE? You cannot just make a really stupid claim and call it evidence! Let's see some references to experiments and/or observatkions to sjupport your position...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705876

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:57:56 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:33:22 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 9:06:26 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 8:52:30 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 6:23:00 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 4:29:27 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Wrong,  Mitch.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Let's see your evidence, in the form of experiments and/or observations. Without evidence you've got nothing to offer... but then, you NEVER have anything to offer, you just make shit up! But Why?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You can't get rid of where weight science manifests
> > > > > > and how atoms stack solely due to their solid surfaces.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I challenge you.
> > > > > > Weight science is new...
> > > > > > Where is weight for the Earth manifesting PNUT? To reach the center?
> > > > > > The Earth's atoms stack by their solid surfaces carrying their weight
> > > > > > by the solid surfaces to the absolute center of the Earth. That center
> > > > > > point atom bears the entire weight of what is entirely above...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Also... neutrons wave surface are solid for neutron stars for
> > > > > > stacking neutron to neutron...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Let's see what you have to say PNUT...
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've already said it, Mitch... where is your evidence?
> > > > 
> > > > You have said nothing but I am wrong... and that ain't
> > > > enough PNUT... 
> > > 
> > > I didn't say you were wrong, Mitch, but I did ask for you to present your evidence. Is that too hard for you? No evidence, no theory. End of discussion.
> > > 
> > > > Where is weight as you have said it manifesting?
> > > > Weight is where the solid surfaces are.
> > > > Evidence you can't refute...
> > > 
> > > What evidence is that, Mitch? you've presented zero evidence.
> > > 
> > > > It requires a solid atomic surface for atoms
> > > > to stack and convey weight to the center of
> > > > the Earth. 
> > > 
> > > Evidence for this claim?
> > > 
> > > > Neutrons have solid wave surfaces
> > > > just like the atoms. Atoms and neutrons stack
> > > > for Earth and Neutron stars weight.
> > > 
> > > Evidence for this claim?
> > > 
> > > No, Mitch, I call bullshit all the way. You need to provide evidence for your crazy statements, that is how science works, after all. You make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. Just like every other scientist in the face of the Earth. Every one of them. Do you get a pass for some obscure reason?
> > > 
> > > Provide the evidence or go away in shame. Your call.
> > 
> > Oh Really PNUT?
> > The evidence is atoms stack... neutrons stack in neutron stars.
> > Refute that evidence then...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> WHAT EVIDENCE? You cannot just make a really stupid claim and call it evidence! Let's see some references to experiments and/or observatkions to sjupport your position...

What is your evidence otherwise PNUT?
How do atoms stack if they have no solid surface PNUT?
Similarly What holds up a neutron star?
Democritus called atoms "Little Round Hard Things..."
for a reason.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705969

The dimwitted Mitch wrote...

"What is your evidence otherwise PNUT?"

Ah, this question proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, Mitch, have zero idea how science works. When someone comes up with a concept that goes contrary to mainstream science, it up to THEM to provide evidence in support of their claim, it is definitely NOT up to anyone else to disprove their wacky theory.

So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim, there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very long time.

So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705975

On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> The dimwitted Mitch wrote...
> 
> "What is your evidence otherwise PNUT?"
> 
> Ah, this question proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, Mitch, have zero idea how science works. When someone comes up with a concept that goes contrary to mainstream science, it up to THEM to provide evidence in support of their claim, it is definitely NOT up to anyone else to disprove their wacky theory.
> 
> So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim, there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very long time.
> 
> So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!

You lose the argument PNUT...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#705985

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:

>> So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim,
>there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the 
>Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very 
>long time.

>> So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!

>You lose the argument PNUT...

No, Mitch. You made the claim, you prove it. That's how science works.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706017

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >> So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim,
> >there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the 
> >Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very 
> >long time.
> 
> >> So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!
> 
> >You lose the argument PNUT...
> 
> No, Mitch. You made the claim, you prove it. That's how science works.

moron? You just lost with him... Atoms stack just as Neutrons do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706018

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>> >> So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim,
>> >there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the 
>> >Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very 
>> >long time.
>> 
>> >> So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!
>> 
>> >You lose the argument PNUT...
>> 
>> No, Mitch. You made the claim, you prove it. That's how science works.

>moron? You just lost with him... Atoms stack just as Neutrons do.

Where's your evidence? You claim it, you prove it. If by "stack" you mean
that solids are solid because atoms are solid and "stack", that's wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706135

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> >> So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim,
> >> >there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the 
> >> >Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very 
> >> >long time.
> >> 
> >> >> So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!
> >> 
> >> >You lose the argument PNUT...
> >> 
> >> No, Mitch. You made the claim, you prove it. That's how science works.
> 
> >moron? You just lost with him... Atoms stack just as Neutrons do.
> 
> Where's your evidence? You claim it, you prove it. If by "stack" you mean
> that solids are solid because atoms are solid and "stack", that's wrong.

You lose the argument with him...

Atoms stack on top of each other because they
are solid spheres...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706286

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 10:23:00 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 1:06:20 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> > 
> > >On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> > >> 
> > >> >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:50:12 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> 
> > >> >> So it is up to YOU, Mitch, to show evidence in support of your claim,
> > >> >there is no burden on me to disprove anything. This is called the 
> > >> >Scientific Method and has been an integral part of science for a very 
> > >> >long time.
> > >> 
> > >> >> So, let's see that evidence, Mitch. Put up or shut up, that's how it works!
> > >> 
> > >> >You lose the argument PNUT...
> > >> 
> > >> No, Mitch. You made the claim, you prove it. That's how science works.
> > 
> > >moron? You just lost with him... Atoms stack just as Neutrons do.
> > 
> > Where's your evidence? You claim it, you prove it. If by "stack" you mean
> > that solids are solid because atoms are solid and "stack", that's wrong.
> 
> You lose the argument with him...
> 
> Atoms stack on top of each other because they
> are solid spheres...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Reality is taking in size of electron and proton to make hydrogen atom there is more space that Earth to sun.That we know 100% Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706066

On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Einstein changed from his light particle to a spherical wavelet in 1937.
> > He said he could not reconcile a particle nature with the wave. He did
> > not believe in QM...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...

Just the way your God wishes it.It does not have to be science.Its in the bible.Mitch your brain is saggy from being in the wash.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#706133

On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 6:24:41 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 3:50:49 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Einstein changed from his light particle to a spherical wavelet in 1937.
> > > He said he could not reconcile a particle nature with the wave. He did
> > > not believe in QM...
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > The atom is a sphere with a solid surface...
> 
> Just the way your God wishes it.It does not have to be science.Its in the bible.Mitch your brain is saggy from being in the wash.Bert

Light makes a ray(comb) Photons are closest to a perfect spheres. only neutrinos are more perfectly round.Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web