Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #720017 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-21 23:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-12-26 21:06 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 182 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-21 17:23 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-21 19:35 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-21 17:39 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-22 01:20 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-21 21:16 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 02:30 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-22 10:48 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 08:50 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 17:22 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 10:24 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 17:21 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction turkey <turkey@invalid.none> - 2018-12-21 21:30 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-21 22:11 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-22 04:10 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-22 08:41 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-22 10:51 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 08:57 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-22 09:20 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 11:58 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-22 22:33 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-22 17:53 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-23 01:59 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-22 19:14 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-22 23:54 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 08:57 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-23 09:21 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 07:22 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-23 09:10 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-23 10:54 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 14:01 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-23 11:08 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 13:31 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 11:38 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 13:55 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-23 11:11 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 14:24 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-23 11:33 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-23 10:53 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-23 10:57 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-23 22:35 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 20:07 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 18:11 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-24 11:07 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 11:31 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 11:11 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 15:15 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 13:47 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 13:26 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 18:10 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 16:16 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-24 16:28 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 17:05 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-24 17:26 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 17:43 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-24 18:01 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:43 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-24 22:49 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 05:48 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 11:27 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-27 16:33 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-24 16:19 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 19:39 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-24 18:09 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 19:32 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-24 19:39 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 11:29 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-27 16:34 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-24 16:54 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-24 19:41 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 19:26 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 20:32 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 21:00 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 05:47 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 19:45 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 06:04 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 01:16 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 04:34 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 08:11 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 09:44 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 10:46 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-25 08:58 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 11:02 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-25 09:07 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 11:30 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 11:51 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 12:02 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 09:31 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 09:07 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 12:30 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 12:05 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-12-26 12:09 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 11:40 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-27 12:07 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 10:09 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 21:03 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 12:39 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-27 12:49 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-28 12:21 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-28 10:23 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-28 12:40 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 10:52 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-29 13:00 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 10:28 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-27 13:47 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-27 11:19 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 12:23 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-27 16:27 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 14:29 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 21:03 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-25 10:48 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-25 12:17 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 15:07 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 11:42 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-27 12:13 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 10:15 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 12:40 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 08:47 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 11:47 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 10:56 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-25 18:02 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 11:05 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-12-26 19:53 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-26 13:00 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 13:15 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 11:26 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 14:08 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 12:23 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 14:51 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 12:17 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 13:19 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 11:28 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-25 10:43 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-25 12:14 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 14:36 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-25 12:39 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-12-25 11:49 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-12-25 16:11 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-25 17:59 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 08:40 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 11:49 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 09:27 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-24 19:22 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-24 23:06 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 11:25 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 09:44 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-27 11:51 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 09:56 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 12:42 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 10:27 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-27 19:25 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-12-25 11:31 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-25 08:17 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-25 11:36 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-25 12:40 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2018-12-26 12:15 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-24 09:38 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-23 18:58 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-26 21:08 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-22 09:15 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-26 21:12 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-12-27 00:13 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-22 10:47 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 08:50 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-26 21:15 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-26 21:15 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-22 09:19 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-12-22 22:32 +0000
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-22 19:09 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-23 11:10 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-23 09:12 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-23 11:22 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_maester.fake> - 2018-12-23 13:36 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-24 11:07 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-23 19:27 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-26 21:19 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-12-27 11:54 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 10:01 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> - 2018-12-27 21:04 -0800
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-26 21:16 -0500
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-12-26 21:16 -0700
Re: Climate change and marine mass extinction "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-12-26 21:06 -0500
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 18:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g8f9liFrmtoU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #720813 |
% <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer >>>>>> side of >>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>> >>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>> >>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>> in constant motion. >>>>> >>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>> >>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>> >>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit >>> >>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >> >> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a zero >> point potential energy that can't be removed. >> > what if i turn off the linear > You will go lindeaf.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <brqh1v.ifl.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #720818 |
On 2018-12-25 11:02 a.m., Snit wrote: > % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer >>>>>>> side of >>>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>>> >>>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>>> >>>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>>> in constant motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>>> >>>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>>> >>>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit >>>> >>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >>> >>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a zero >>> point potential energy that can't be removed. >>> >> what if i turn off the linear >> > > You will go lindeaf. > no you are
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1o0flqt.11t2fljjt6tzjN%snipeco.2@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #720819 |
% <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. > >>> > >>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always > >>> a zero point potential energy that can't be removed. > >>> > >> what if i turn off the linear > > > > You will go lindeaf. > > > no you are Best laugh of this Xmyth, chortle! -- ^Ï^ My pet rock Gordon just is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-26 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <brtc6f.1au.17.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #720977 |
On 2018-12-26 12:53 p.m., Sn!pe wrote: > % <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >>>>> >>>>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always >>>>> a zero point potential energy that can't be removed. >>>>> >>>> what if i turn off the linear >>> >>> You will go lindeaf. >>> >> no you are > > Best laugh of this Xmyth, chortle! > ta
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 13:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pvts3b$1ljd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #720813 |
On 12/25/2018 12:56 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> >>> wrote: >>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer >>>>>> side of >>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>>>>> stupid >>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>> >>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>> >>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>> in constant motion. >>>>> >>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>> >>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>> >>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit >>> >>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >> >> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a zero >> point potential energy that can't be removed. >> > what if i turn off the linear Then nobody will hear you much past East Pine. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 11:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <brqi9l.209.19.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #720821 |
On 2018-12-25 11:15 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: > On 12/25/2018 12:56 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> >>>> wrote: >>>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer >>>>>>> side of >>>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>>>>>> stupid >>>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>>> >>>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>>> >>>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>>> in constant motion. >>>>>> >>>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>>> >>>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>>> >>>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees >>>>> Fahrenheit >>>> >>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >>> >>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a zero >>> point potential energy that can't be removed. >>> >> what if i turn off the linear > > Then nobody will hear you much past East Pine. > that's a good ground plain trip , i'd need at least 100 feet of tower , maybe a better antenna then this half wave , it's not big on db gain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pvtv81$31u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #720824 |
On 12/25/2018 1:26 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-12-25 11:15 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >> On 12/25/2018 12:56 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>>> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the >>>>>>>> warmer side of >>>>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>>>>>>> stupid >>>>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>>>> in constant motion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>>>> >>>>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the >>>>>> impossible- >>>>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees >>>>>> Fahrenheit >>>>> >>>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >>>> >>>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a >>>> zero point potential energy that can't be removed. >>>> >>> what if i turn off the linear >> >> Then nobody will hear you much past East Pine. >> > that's a good ground plain trip , > i'd need at least 100 feet of tower , > maybe a better antenna then this half wave , > it's not big on db gain There are some trick antennas that are pretty easy but you need a good antenna tuner and impedance analyzer to get where the amplifier is happy. There's one that's an insulated endfire beam - it's basically a wire wrapped in an insulator that you just stretch out on the ground. It's good for point to point when you don't have time to put up a tower with a fancy beam. There's a company in Utah (Eyring, I think) that makes them for the military. All you need is 100 feet or more (longer is better) of drop cord. You can bury it a couple of inches and it's secret. 13 db gain is possible. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <brqlkc.ei7.19.1@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #720832 |
On 2018-12-25 12:08 p.m., mixed nuts wrote: > On 12/25/2018 1:26 PM, % wrote: >> On 2018-12-25 11:15 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>> On 12/25/2018 12:56 PM, % wrote: >>>> On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>>>> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter >>>>>> <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the >>>>>>>>> warmer side of >>>>>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>>>>>>>> stupid >>>>>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>>>>> in constant motion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the >>>>>>> impossible- >>>>>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees >>>>>>> Fahrenheit >>>>>> >>>>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >>>>> >>>>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a >>>>> zero point potential energy that can't be removed. >>>>> >>>> what if i turn off the linear >>> >>> Then nobody will hear you much past East Pine. >>> >> that's a good ground plain trip , >> i'd need at least 100 feet of tower , >> maybe a better antenna then this half wave , >> it's not big on db gain > > There are some trick antennas that are pretty easy but you need a good > antenna tuner and impedance analyzer to get where the amplifier is > happy. There's one that's an insulated endfire beam - it's basically a > wire wrapped in an insulator that you just stretch out on the ground. > It's good for point to point when you don't have time to put up a tower > with a fancy beam. There's a company in Utah (Eyring, I think) that > makes them for the military. All you need is 100 feet or more (longer > is better) of drop cord. You can bury it a couple of inches and it's > secret. 13 db gain is possible. > in the old days guys used ballons to lift their antennas , that was at the shows and there were prises for , fastest set up , farthest signal and such , i thought about a long wire a few times , i could go from tree to tree to tree
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 14:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pvu1om$efl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #720835 |
On 12/25/2018 2:23 PM, % wrote: > On 2018-12-25 12:08 p.m., mixed nuts wrote: >> On 12/25/2018 1:26 PM, % wrote: >>> On 2018-12-25 11:15 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>>> On 12/25/2018 12:56 PM, % wrote: >>>>> On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: >>>>>> On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter >>>>>>> <chico@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>>>>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>>>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the >>>>>>>>>> warmer side of >>>>>>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and >>>>>>>>>> a stupid >>>>>>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>>>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>>>>>> in constant motion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>>>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>>>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>>>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>>>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>>>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>>>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>>>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>>>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>>>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>>>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>>>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>>>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>>>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>>>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>>>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the >>>>>>>> impossible- >>>>>>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees >>>>>>>> Fahrenheit >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. >>>>>> >>>>>> Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a >>>>>> zero point potential energy that can't be removed. >>>>>> >>>>> what if i turn off the linear >>>> >>>> Then nobody will hear you much past East Pine. >>>> >>> that's a good ground plain trip , >>> i'd need at least 100 feet of tower , >>> maybe a better antenna then this half wave , >>> it's not big on db gain >> >> There are some trick antennas that are pretty easy but you need a good >> antenna tuner and impedance analyzer to get where the amplifier is >> happy. There's one that's an insulated endfire beam - it's basically >> a wire wrapped in an insulator that you just stretch out on the >> ground. It's good for point to point when you don't have time to put >> up a tower with a fancy beam. There's a company in Utah (Eyring, I >> think) that makes them for the military. All you need is 100 feet or >> more (longer is better) of drop cord. You can bury it a couple of >> inches and it's secret. 13 db gain is possible. >> > in the old days guys used ballons to lift their antennas , > that was at the shows and there were prises for , > fastest set up , farthest signal and such , > i thought about a long wire a few times , > i could go from tree to tree to tree Long wires are hard to match but if you terminate the far end with a resistor, they become a traveling wave (end fire) radiator. A rhombic is basically a traveling wave dipole many wavelengths long and terminated to make it possible to match. The bigger the rhombic, the narrower the beam and the higher the gain. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 12:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.368c302a94d6890e995cde@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #720813 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <brqght.s0c.19.13@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com says... @@@@@ @@@@@ On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: @@@@@ > On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: @@@@@ >> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> @@@@@ >> wrote: @@@@@ >>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, @@@@@ >>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... @@@@@ >>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate @@@@@ >>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: @@@@@ >>>> @@@@@ >>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer @@@@@ >>>>> side of @@@@@ >>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid @@@@@ >>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. @@@@@ >>>> @@@@@ >>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. @@@@@ >>>> @@@@@ >>>> The two have different physical properties. While the @@@@@ >>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are @@@@@ >>>> in constant motion. @@@@@ >>>> @@@@@ >>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window @@@@@ >>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with @@@@@ >>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed @@@@@ >>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to @@@@@ >>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like @@@@@ >>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough @@@@@ >>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane @@@@@ >>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't @@@@@ >>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as @@@@@ >>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules @@@@@ >>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold @@@@@ >>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an @@@@@ >>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no @@@@@ >>>> air blowing through anything like it does through @@@@@ >>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! @@@@@ >>>> @@@@@ >>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and @@@@@ >>>> oranges in your scientific folly. @@@@@ >>> @@@@@ >>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- @@@@@ >>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit @@@@@ >> @@@@@ >> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. @@@@@ > @@@@@ > Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a zero @@@@@ > point potential energy that can't be removed. @@@@@ > @@@@@ what if i turn off the linear Your neighbors will be able to watch TV again. -- Checkmate ® Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore) Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll) Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012 Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <brqou8.l93.19.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #720847 |
On 2018-12-25 1:17 p.m., Checkmate wrote: > Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by > Checkmate! In article <brqght.s0c.19.13@news.alt.net>, persent@gmail.com > says... > > > @@@@@ > @@@@@ On 2018-12-25 9:47 a.m., mixed nuts wrote: > @@@@@ > On 12/25/2018 11:02 AM, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > @@@@@ >> On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 08:58:19 -0700, Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> > @@@@@ >> wrote: > @@@@@ >>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, > @@@@@ >>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... > @@@@@ >>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate > @@@@@ >>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: > @@@@@ >>>> > @@@@@ >>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer > @@@@@ >>>>> side of > @@@@@ >>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid > @@@@@ >>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. > @@@@@ >>>> > @@@@@ >>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. > @@@@@ >>>> > @@@@@ >>>> The two have different physical properties. While the > @@@@@ >>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are > @@@@@ >>>> in constant motion. > @@@@@ >>>> > @@@@@ >>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window > @@@@@ >>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with > @@@@@ >>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed > @@@@@ >>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to > @@@@@ >>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like > @@@@@ >>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough > @@@@@ >>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane > @@@@@ >>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't > @@@@@ >>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as > @@@@@ >>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules > @@@@@ >>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold > @@@@@ >>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an > @@@@@ >>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no > @@@@@ >>>> air blowing through anything like it does through > @@@@@ >>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! > @@@@@ >>>> > @@@@@ >>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and > @@@@@ >>>> oranges in your scientific folly. > @@@@@ >>> > @@@@@ >>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- > @@@@@ >>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit > @@@@@ >> > @@@@@ >> Nothing is moving at zero degrees Kelvin. > @@@@@ > > @@@@@ > Electromagneticism, for instance, can't stop so there's always a zero > @@@@@ > point potential energy that can't be removed. > @@@@@ > > @@@@@ what if i turn off the linear > > Your neighbors will be able to watch TV again. > i don't have any neighbors but i really don't have any neighbors
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 11:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pvtls9$pov$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #720784 |
On 12/25/2018 10:58 AM, Skeeter wrote: > In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, > greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >> >> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >> >>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side of >>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >> >> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >> >> The two have different physical properties. While the >> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >> in constant motion. >> >> This means that the air on the outside of a window >> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >> to claim the air passes through the window pane >> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >> themselves. The entire process is not like an >> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >> air blowing through anything like it does through >> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >> >> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >> oranges in your scientific folly. > > All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- > to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit Well, you can flip the spins and go to negative temperatures where things are so impossibly cold that they become impossibly hot. -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <pvttnm$6jq$7@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #720791 |
x-no-archive: yes On 12/25/2018 8:28 AM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 12/25/2018 10:58 AM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer >>>> side of >>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>> >>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>> >>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>> in constant motion. >>> >>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>> >>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>> oranges in your scientific folly. >> >> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit > > Well, you can flip the spins and go to negative temperatures where > things are so impossibly cold that they become impossibly hot. Don't argue with Greg, he's a scientist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 12:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.368c2f98d1e003f77a8@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #720791 |
In article <pvtls9$pov$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... > >On 12/25/2018 10:58 AM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>> >>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>> >>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side of >>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>> >>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>> >>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>> in constant motion. >>> >>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>> >>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>> oranges in your scientific folly. >> >> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit > >Well, you can flip the spins and go to negative temperatures where >things are so impossibly cold that they become impossibly hot. Then molecules would be moving very fast and has nothing to do with the conversation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 14:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pvu0rj$akg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #720833 |
On 12/25/2018 2:14 PM, Skeeter wrote: > In article <pvtls9$pov$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie > says... >> >> On 12/25/2018 10:58 AM, Skeeter wrote: >>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>> >>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side of >>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>> >>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>> >>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>> in constant motion. >>>> >>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>> >>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>> >>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit >> >> Well, you can flip the spins and go to negative temperatures where >> things are so impossibly cold that they become impossibly hot. > > Then molecules would be moving very fast and has nothing to do with the > conversation. What if there aren't any molecules to move fast so the energy radiates away and makes your Space Force Battle Cruiser go like the dickens to carry Space Force landing teams to space beaches where they can seize control of the space resort sites and free the hostages? -- Grizzly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <chico@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.368c3553b05579267b6@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #720836 |
In article <pvu0rj$akg$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie says... > >On 12/25/2018 2:14 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <pvtls9$pov$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie >> says... >>> >>> On 12/25/2018 10:58 AM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side of >>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid >>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>> >>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>> >>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>> in constant motion. >>>>> >>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>> >>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>> >>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit >>> >>> Well, you can flip the spins and go to negative temperatures where >>> things are so impossibly cold that they become impossibly hot. >> >> Then molecules would be moving very fast and has nothing to do with the >> conversation. > >What if there aren't any molecules to move fast so the energy radiates >away and makes your Space Force Battle Cruiser go like the dickens to >carry Space Force landing teams to space beaches where they can seize >control of the space resort sites and free the hostages? Then that would be ok.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 11:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <pvu1kv$g2f$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #720836 |
x-no-archive: yes On 12/25/2018 11:36 AM, mixed nuts wrote: > On 12/25/2018 2:14 PM, Skeeter wrote: >> In article <pvtls9$pov$1@gioia.aioe.org>, melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie >> says... >>> >>> On 12/25/2018 10:58 AM, Skeeter wrote: >>>> In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, >>>> greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate >>>>> <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer >>>>>> side of >>>>>> the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>>>>> stupid >>>>>> fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >>>>> >>>>> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >>>>> >>>>> The two have different physical properties. While the >>>>> molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are >>>>> in constant motion. >>>>> >>>>> This means that the air on the outside of a window >>>>> can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with >>>>> a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed >>>>> molecules of the window pane can't move around to >>>>> do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like >>>>> a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough >>>>> to claim the air passes through the window pane >>>>> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't >>>>> cause the window pane to become cold as well as >>>>> deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules >>>>> bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold >>>>> themselves. The entire process is not like an >>>>> air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no >>>>> air blowing through anything like it does through >>>>> a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >>>>> >>>>> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and >>>>> oranges in your scientific folly. >>>> >>>> All molecules are in constant motion. Until they reach the impossible- >>>> to-reach temperature of zero kelvin, or minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit >>> >>> Well, you can flip the spins and go to negative temperatures where >>> things are so impossibly cold that they become impossibly hot. >> >> Then molecules would be moving very fast and has nothing to do with the >> conversation. > > What if there aren't any molecules to move fast so the energy radiates > away and makes your Space Force Battle Cruiser go like the dickens to > carry Space Force landing teams to space beaches where they can seize > control of the space resort sites and free the hostages? and grab the space oil?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 16:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g8f34vFoodrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #720781 |
On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 10:46:16 -0500, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> > wrote: > >>Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side >>of the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>stupid fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. > > You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. > > The two have different physical properties. While the molecules of the > solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are in constant motion. > > This means that the air on the outside of a window can bombard the fixed > window pane molecules with a new supply of warmer molecules while the > fixed molecules of the window pane can't move around to do so > efficiently. That's why the window acts like a fixed barrier to the air. > Nobody is stupid enough to claim the air passes through the window pane > so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't cause the window > pane to become cold as well as deny that a cold window pane causes the > air molecules bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold themselves. > The entire process is not like an air conditioner and or a refrigerator. > There is no air blowing through anything like it does through a > condenser or an evaporator, you fool! > > You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and oranges in your > scientific folly. I think Poe's Law applies here, Snit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law Too bad everyone in sci.physics has him plonked, or maybe they could set him straight. -- -v
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 17:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g8f9guFrlogU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #720787 |
vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 10:46:16 -0500, Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> >> wrote: >> >>> Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side >>> of the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a >>> stupid fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. >> >> You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. >> >> The two have different physical properties. While the molecules of the >> solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are in constant motion. >> >> This means that the air on the outside of a window can bombard the fixed >> window pane molecules with a new supply of warmer molecules while the >> fixed molecules of the window pane can't move around to do so >> efficiently. That's why the window acts like a fixed barrier to the air. >> Nobody is stupid enough to claim the air passes through the window pane >> so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't cause the window >> pane to become cold as well as deny that a cold window pane causes the >> air molecules bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold themselves. >> The entire process is not like an air conditioner and or a refrigerator. >> There is no air blowing through anything like it does through a >> condenser or an evaporator, you fool! >> >> You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and oranges in your >> scientific folly. > > I think Poe's Law applies here, Snit. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law > > Too bad everyone in sci.physics has him plonked, or maybe they could set > him straight. > Could they in a way he would understand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-25 08:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.368bfd613c0e4caa995cc7@news.altopia.com> |
| In reply to | #720781 |
Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by Checkmate! In article <dnj42eljvpl26l9i7tlif2r8l756fsujf0@4ax.com>, greghall@yacht_maester.fake says... @@@@@ @@@@@ On Mon, 24 Dec 2018 19:26:59 -0800, Checkmate <oshay.shad@yahoo.corn> wrote: @@@@@ @@@@@ >Are the molecules of glass moving at the same speed on the warmer side of @@@@@ >the glass as they are on the colder side? If a dumb fuck and a stupid @@@@@ >fuck mated and had offspring, it would be just like you. @@@@@ @@@@@ You moron, you. The glass is a solid while the air is a gas. @@@@@ @@@@@ The two have different physical properties. While the @@@@@ molecules of the solid are *fixed* the gas molecules are @@@@@ in constant motion. Oh really? Why does glass break if you subject it to extreme changes in temperature? All molecules vibrate unless you figure out a way to get them to absolute zero. Here's a *Middle School* primer that proves you don't know shit: http://www.middleschoolchemistry.com/lessonplans/chapter1/lesson4 @@@@@ This means that the air on the outside of a window @@@@@ can bombard the fixed window pane molecules with @@@@@ a new supply of warmer molecules while the fixed @@@@@ molecules of the window pane can't move around to @@@@@ do so efficiently. That's why the window acts like @@@@@ a fixed barrier to the air. Nobody is stupid enough @@@@@ to claim the air passes through the window pane @@@@@ so why are you so stupid to claim the cold air doesn't @@@@@ cause the window pane to become cold as well as @@@@@ deny that a cold window pane causes the air molecules @@@@@ bumping up against the pane to NOT become cold @@@@@ themselves. The entire process is not like an @@@@@ air conditioner and or a refrigerator. There is no @@@@@ air blowing through anything like it does through @@@@@ a condenser or an evaporator, you fool! Of course air doesn't "blow through the glass," you moron. Warm air on one side and cold air on the other creates a gradient, where the heat migrates from the warmer side to the colder side. Cold does NOT migrate towards the warmer side, because cold is a condition, not a thing. Heat is a thing. Cold is what's left when heat is removed. @@@@@ You and the Snitidiot are comparing apples and @@@@@ oranges in your scientific folly. This is middle school stuff, you ignorant simpleton. Stop embarrassing yourself. -- Checkmate ® Copyright © 2018 all rights reserved AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore) Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Awards (Post-Burnore) Co-winner Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award May 2001, (Brethern of Beelzebub troll) Pierre Salinger Hook, Line & Sinker award, Feb 2012 Author, Humorist, Cynic Philosopher, Humanitarian Poet, Elektrishun to the Stars Usenet Shot-Caller In loving memory of The Battle Kitten May 2010-February 12, 2017 "There are many here among us, who feel that life is but a joke." "I am the author of nearly as much kook butthurt as kensi." -Nadegda Message-ID: <pbg8ne$p9k$21@dont-email.me>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web