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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394255

Re: Particle physics

From Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups sci.physics.relativity
Subject Re: Particle physics
Date 2016-09-29 10:05 -0500
Organization Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID <nsjaj1$1oeg$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References (16 earlier) <slrnnuj6k7.cut.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <nsdtam$1bah$1@gioia.aioe.org> <slrnnunbf3.25e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <nsgjsk$1kfi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <slrnnuoocg.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/28/2016 7:34 PM, Ned Latham wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> ----snip----
>
>>>> Ned, when did you go to high school?
>>>
>>> 1956-1960.
>>
>> So you are 73 or 74 now, and your time in high school was 56 years ago.
>> I think you're going to find that a lot of work has been done since the
>> time you went to high school.
>
> I think you'll find that if you'd read what I say with your eyes open,
> you'd be aware that I haven't been comatose since high school.

Let's just say you have some catching up to do. As well as some 
misunderstandings corrected.

>
>>>> Surely you know that high school books are not famous for their
>>>> scientific accuracy.
>>>
>>> Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense",
>>
>> I beg your pardon? What are you quoting from?
>
> 2013/14 BBC documentary "Faster than the Speed of Light?".
> Statement made by Prof. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College,
> London, at a point approximately 44:40 from the start.
>
> I misquoted him. His exact words are: "Obviously this result
> [FTL neutrinoes] contradicts what you find in textbooks, but
> if you're actually working in the frontier of physics - if
> you're really trying to find new theories, this is not as
> tragic as you might think. Its a crisis, but we need a crisis:
> there's a lot of things in physics, in those textbooks, which
> don't really make any sense".

Pithy comment. Like many made in TV shows aimed at laypeople, which have 
to be taken with a grain of salt. Did he cite specifically what doesn't 
make sense?

>
>> I find it very sensible.
>
> The separate theories that make up what is called "current theory"
> are mathematically valid. "Mathematically valid" is not synonymous
> with "sensible". They are also counter-intuitive, and *that* is
> contra-sensible.

Here's where the rub is. Perhaps you have an expectation that physics 
theories should be intuitive. Physicists don't. The metric for success 
that physicists use for a theory is that they make accurate predictions 
of behaviors, whether the premise of the theory is intuitive or not. In 
general, people's intuition is misleading and is no good at ferreting 
out what's real in nature.

>
>>> and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a
>>> geometric theoren,
>>
>> The geometry of spacetime IS a physical theory. I don't know how
>> you are distinguishing a "physical theory" from "just a geometric
>> theoren [sic]". What do you think are the particular features of
>> a physical theory that "just a geometric theoren" would not satisfy?
>
> A physical theory needs a postulate for matter.

Is this YOUR claim? Or are you saying that it's a claim by physicists?
If it's YOUR claim, then a) where does it come from, and b) why do you 
think scientists would agree it's needed?

>  A geometrical
> theorem doesn't. Calling SR a physical theory is no more sensible
> than calling Pythagoras's theorem a physical theory,
>
>>> and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a
>>> means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string
>>> theory,
>>
>> Hold on, several things to correct here. Do not confuse quantum
>> mechanics with QED. QED is a theory of the electromagnetic interaction,
>> and GR is a theory of the gravitational interaction. There is no need to
>> reconcile QED with GR because they are talking about two completely
>> different interactions.
>
> Okay, string theory is a failure as a means of reconciling GR and
> quantum mechanics.

Yes, I agree.

>
>> Second, there are no outstanding problems with QED that I'm aware of.
>
> Without string theory it doesn't have a postulate for matter.

Again, is this YOUR requirement?

What is this "postulate for matter" that you keep referring to? What 
question would be answered by it?

And do you know about the Higgs mechanism?

>
>> Third, regarding a quantum theory of gravity, it is true that this is
>> an unsolved problem. I believe that just because there are still open
>> questions in physics does not mean that the theories of physics are
>> dismal failures.
>
> Well, gee. Does that mean that the open question in the theory I
> presented some time back is not a fatal obstruction to its being
> considered worth an honest appraisal?

Fatal obstruction? No.

Let me put it a different way. Do you think that if YOU PERSONALLY have 
an open question, then a) why is that open question important to 
physicists? and b) what makes you so sure that it's an open question 
that hasn't been answered? and c) if it's not really an open question 
that hasn't been answered, and in fact it's already been answered, then 
on whom does the responsibility lie for you to become aware of it?

>
>>                  Are you saying that theories in physics can only be
>> considered successful once ALL outstanding questions are answered and
>> there is nothing left to do?
>
> No. I'm saying "string theory is a failure as a means of reconciling
> GR and quantim mechanics".

Yes, I agree. This means there is an open question about how to 
reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. So?

>
> It's not what I *did* say, but it makes the same point, which I note
> you've avoided responding to; ie, university textbooks are no better
> than high school text books when it comes to scientific accuracy.

I disagree with that statement. The pithy statement from the TV 
personality notwithstanding. Note also that it depends on whether you're 
talking about a textbook from 1960 or one from 2015.

>
>>> of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of
>>> matter, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that
>>> blesses university texts.
>
> There's the point. See it?

What "fame"? What "blessing"?

>
>>>>>> That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned.
>>>>>
>>>>> So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious:
>>>>> you know full well that most authors use the term "rest mass"
>>>>> instead.
>>>>
>>>> Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't.
>>>
>>> Oh, boy: he said, she said.
>>
>> No, this isn't between you and me.
>
> Yes it is. "Some do, most don't": YOUR words. Without an
> exhaustive survey of all writings on the subject, it's
> entirely a matter of your opinion vs mine as to which
> group is the more numerous.

No, it isn't. The exhaustive catalog of writings is out there. All one 
has to do is to go out there and look through them. These are what are 
called "documented facts". If there is a dispute over what the 
documented facts are, then all that's needed is for both parties to go 
research the documented facts. I believe I've read more textbooks than 
you on this subject, given what you've said already is the basis for 
your statements. I don't owe you a count. You owe yourself a better look 
at documented facts.

>
> ----snip----
>
>>>>> I notice that physicists have refined the language
>>>>> of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases
>>>>> without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass);
>>>>> instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah.
>>>>
>>>> This has been true for decades. And it's a really important difference.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> Recall that you were the one that stated that physicists have been
>>>> trying to validate the "variable mass" idea using accelerators,
>>>
>>> No. I said that they *had done* decades ago. Eight decades, actually,
>>> but now I recognise that it's six.
>>
>> But as you probably now recognize, they weren't validating "variable
>> mass" six decades ago either.
>
> Publications then and since spoke of "variable mass".

WHICH publications? Your high school book from 1960?

> The quibbling,
> which appears to date back to Einstein himself, sometimes appears
> to be over now that the variable mass notion is demonstrably
> untenable (but see paragraph before snip, below). That does not
> change the process engaged in six or maybe five decades ago.
> It remains invalid.
>
>>                               Because six decades ago, they were
>> measuring
>
> Not measuring.
>
>>           INVARIANT mass (or if you prefer, rest mass), which
>> does not vary.
>
> That contradicts the statements published back then.

In your high school book?

>
>> Just correcting a long series of mistakes, Ned.
>
> That remains to be seen. And verified as my mistakes, as opposed
> to misinformative publication.
>
> The docco I quoted above is a case in point: its narrator is a
> mathematician (commentators throughout are phycicists). Variable
> mass is part of his explanation of SR (at a point approximately
> 11:50 from the start).

I'm going to point out that television shows are not textbooks. Nor are 
they intended to be used as textbooks. If you complaint is that 
television shows and a high school book from 1960 have given you the 
impression that variable mass was a central principle used by 
physicists, then I'm just going to suggest you need to up your game on 
your reference materials.

>
> ----snip----
>
>>>> I don't know that from a high-school perspective, you would have
>>>> enough basis to judge whether physicists are quibbling, hedging or
>>>> cherry-picking.
>>>
>>> High school was my source for the information about cyclotrons and
>>> synchrotrons. And the first experimantal "confirmation" of variable
>>> mass. Little else.
>>>
>>> Except, of course, that nowadays it's not variable mass. As I said,
>>> nice little quibble.
>>
>> Not just a quibble.
>
> Back then, in the context of those calculations, it was stated as
> variable mass. Altering the term now is quibbling. At best.
>
>>                     Nothing variable about invariant mass.
>
> Wasn't about that term: was about "variable mass" becoming
> "variable momentum".
>
>>>>                 Why don't you read first, and THEN judge?
>>>
>>> Did that.
>>>
>>> Read about Young's experiment, and the incorrect interpretation
>>> of the result. Read about Bequerel's discovery, and the incorrect
>>> conclusion that followed its correct interpretation.
>>
>> Yes. So?
>
> You don't question the statements "incorrect interpretation"
> and "incorrect conclusion"?
>
>> Is it your expectation that science moves without mistakes?
>
> I expect that when science runs into an incorrigible difficulty,
> as when Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, scientists
> will take a long hard look at the "knowledge" the difficulty
> conflicts with.

Which they do. Which is how things like quantum mechanics and relativity 
came about to begin with -- questioning the "knowledge" the observation 
comes in conflict with.

Now, what observation today do you think is in conflict with current 
"knowledge"? Be specific.

>
>>> Read about the running around in circles that followed that until
>>> Einstein put his idea forward.
>>>
>>> Read about the mountains of postulates that have been piled atop
>>> it and each other in the century or so since.
>>
>> Well, first of all, maybe the mountain isn't as tall as you think it is.
>> For example, you claimed Einstein made a postulate of "variable mass",
>> which in fact he did not,
>
> So it became variable momentum: relativistically variable, not
> mechanically variable. The postulate count is unchanged.

Whaaaaat? What do those words even mean? "mechanically variable", 
"relativistically variable"?

>
>>                           and which physicists do not use. They use rest
>> mass or, as it's more commonly labeled, invariant mass, which does not
>> vary at all. So there's one of your postulates that has just puffled
>> into thin air.
>
> Relativistically variable momentum. The postulate count is unchanged.

Momentum has been variable since Newton defined it. What do you think is 
new?

>
>>                What are some of the others you think have been piled up?
>
> Oh, for fuck's sake. Who can keep track of the febrile meanderings
> that pass for theory?

YOU can, if you'd bother to read.

>
> Light speed as a constant within a given medium.

It's not. Doesn't exist as a postulate.

> Light speed as a limit (a different one in every medium).

Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?

> Light speed as inversely proportional to the density of the medium.

Such a law doesn't exist.

> The curvilinear universe.

Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?

> Mass as distorting the contimuum.

Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?

> Time as a dimension of the continuum.


Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?


> Time dilation.

Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?

> Red shift as a measure of distance.


Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?


> The expanding universe.


Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?


> The big bang.


Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?


> The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory).

That's a hypothesis, not a postulate. It's not panning out so well. So?

> Other universes (FYI that's a contradiction in terms).

This is why meanings of words get altered or refined. Your understanding 
of "universe" as meaning "the collection of everything that exists" is 
NOT the meaning of the word as physicists use it. Are you interested in 
the meaning of the word as they use it, or are you just going to dismiss 
that meaning as "just not acceptable"?

> Tachyons and the tachyon "universe".

That's a hypothesis. So?

> Particle entanglement (Schroedinger's cat)

Verified by experiment. Is this a problem?

> Dark matter.

That's a hypothesis. So?

> Dark energy.

That's a hypothesis. So?

>
> Blah, blah, blah .....
>
>>> I've had enough of pseudo-science.
>>
>> What do you think "pseudo-science" means?
>
> In part: processes that are alleged to be science but in fact
> do not follow scientifically valid procedures/methodology.

OK, and so which of the above did not follow scientifically valid 
procedures/methodology? And what in particular was the lapse?

>
> The problem emerging from Young's experiment and Bequerel's
> discovery is where Physics left science and became a
> pseudo-science. Until physicists face up to that problem,
> their pronouncements are not credible.
>
> ----snip----
>
> Ned
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 15:26 -0700
  Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-10 17:59 -0500
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:16 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:18 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:47 -0700
  Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:15 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:30 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:03 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:19 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:53 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 05:35 +0200
    Re: Particle physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-21 13:16 +1000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:12 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 12:35 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:53 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 20:36 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 15:24 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:43 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 17:25 -0500
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:14 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:50 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:20 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:01 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:30 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-09-18 03:12 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 13:10 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:06 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 17:52 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:26 +0000
      Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:29 -0500
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:41 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:12 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:46 -0700
    Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:31 +0000
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:21 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-19 23:44 +0000
      Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
        Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-20 17:51 +0000
          Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:42 -0500
            Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-22 21:54 +0000
              Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 22:13 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:42 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 02:29 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:59 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 02:42 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:32 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:46 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 22:00 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 08:48 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 11:47 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:25 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-29 00:34 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:05 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 01:52 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:19 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:22 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:27 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:08 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:20 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:50 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:26 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 16:57 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:30 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:56 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:12 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:31 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:56 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:33 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:47 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:35 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:02 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:43 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:09 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 16:52 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:53 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:12 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:20 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:33 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:05 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:40 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 20:50 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 05:28 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 04:39 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 12:07 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:52 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 14:05 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 07:33 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 21:42 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 22:01 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 15:07 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 01:35 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 19:49 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 03:58 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 04:43 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 13:46 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 07:56 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 20:35 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:06 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:48 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 15:08 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:49 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:30 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:11 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:18 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:56 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 03:05 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:45 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 13:50 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 09:35 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 20:47 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 16:22 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-08 14:35 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 03:07 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:14 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 03:18 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:17 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 16:57 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 04:03 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:19 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:25 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:47 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:15 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:29 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:48 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:55 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:20 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:38 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:46 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:33 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:23 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 14:17 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:30 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 20:50 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:04 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:33 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:47 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 06:09 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:24 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:38 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:26 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-05 04:31 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 17:04 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:06 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:14 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 02:22 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 07:23 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 02:52 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 21:25 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 06:16 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 06:44 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 20:29 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:08 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-08 14:17 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:18 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 02:42 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:50 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 12:42 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 06:19 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 20:34 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 19:24 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:11 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:20 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 04:24 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 14:20 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:21 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 02:44 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 09:25 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 12:22 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 12:25 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 17:01 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 04:21 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:54 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:33 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:25 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 16:51 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:09 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:21 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:04 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:16 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 23:19 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:33 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 18:11 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 14:26 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 10:16 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 17:36 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 20:53 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:18 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 18:00 +0200
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 17:29 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:01 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 02:39 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:22 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:44 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 21:42 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:12 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 10:59 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:46 -0700
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:09 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 20:05 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:35 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-29 12:13 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:22 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 01:40 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:16 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 10:38 -0500
                Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 20:21 +0000
                Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 20:35 -0500
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 17:19 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:11 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 12:17 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:23 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 20:06 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 16:09 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:56 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:58 -0700
  Re: Particle physics akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 13:46 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:34 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 11:52 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 15:17 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 16:03 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 18:12 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:18 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:34 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 12:57 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:04 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:29 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 13:04 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 13:08 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:08 +0200
      Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:23 +0200
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 12:10 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 21:50 +0200
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:56 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 08:23 +0200
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 11:18 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 15:09 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 15:53 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 14:31 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:01 -0700
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:14 -0700
    Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 19:27 +0200
  Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:39 -0700

csiph-web