Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #394754
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: Particle physics |
| Date | 2016-10-03 17:16 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <nsulbv$dcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <slrnnuvqbs.lc2.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <nsp7ls$6cr$4@gioia.aioe.org> <slrnnv0r2c.6lg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> <nstphu$m94$1@gioia.aioe.org> <slrnnv5lfk.bhs.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
On 10/3/2016 5:04 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>> I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since >>>> revision of your work. Why not? >>> >>> You've been told the reason for that repeatedly. Quit the posturing. >> >> So you're saying that your model is incapable of making quantitative >> predictions because of missing pieces? > > Nope. In some areas it's incapable of making quantitative predictions > because of missing data. > > The Force of gravity is one such area; we don't have data for creating > a curve of v[e]. > >> Very good then, that establishes what scientists need to know, >> doesn't it? > > In the exemplified area, measurements of gravitational force over a > wide range of delta vee between two bodies. > >> Because any theory that cannot >> make quantitative predictions isn't worth looking at, is it? > > So Darwin's Theory of evolution isn't worth looking at? Not in physics. But in any event, you didn't know that Darwin's theory makes quantitative testable predictions??? How LITTLE you know. > > ----snip---- > >>> Shit, you're right. I thought I'd writtem "his" not "its". >>> That text is now updated again, with that passage reworded >>> to make it clearer. >>> >>> And I apologise for that instance of calling you a fucjwit. >> >> Apology accepted, and I would appreciate you taking another look at >> some of the other points I've made before calling me a fuckwit. > > You estavlish an instance of my calling you so and I'll > apologise for it. I'm not sure you'll be able to spell it. > >>>>>> He did mention a wave packet model >>>>>> of light in another paper completely unrelated to special >>>>>> relativity. This kind of error will be seen by physicists >>>>>> that you don't know what you're talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru. >>>> >>>> They do if it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. >>> >>> I said "affect the theory". I did not say "affect perceptions of the >>> theory. >> >> Nevertheless, if a physicist reads that and has his perceptions of the >> theory affected as a result, he's just not going to go on. And that will >> have been the result of YOUR writing. > > I don't thonk you understand the nature of academic bigotry. They're not > going to read *any* of it without some forceful motivation, and I reckon > that if that's present, the introduction won't turn it off. What forceful motivation do you have in mind? > >>>> I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs >>>> like that. >>> >>> Everyone does. You did. >> >> Of course. Understandably. So what are you going to do about it? > > Nothing. There's another thing you don't understand, despite the clue > you have: I'm never going to get any benefit from any of my work, so > to put it simply, I don't give a fuck whether the establishment in any > domain I've entered accept it or not. I've presented it; if they want > to ignore it, that's their loss. Or not a loss. > >>>> If you want physicists to discount them and move on, >>>> perhaps you should delete them from your "work", >>> >>> I've corrected the one error. >>> >>>> because they are riddled with errors. >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >> Now, now, you dismissed one error and now have acknowledged it and >> corrected it. Do you need someone to go through and prove to you that >> there are other errors of historical fact FOR YOU, > > Yep. Two whole paragraphs. Is it too much for you? If you can't do the research to find your own errors, that's a problem. > > ----snip---- > >> I mentioned four >> or five problems and also told you that I found at least 20 in a >> first-pass, 10-minute reading. > > And I'm a mindreader who knows exactly what you think you've found. > Yair, right. You wouldn't HAVE to read my mind if you had done any reading. > >> So do you need EACH ONE of those >> egregious problems hammered into your thick skull > > Tch. Are you trying to start another slanging match? > >> before you'll address them? > > If I'm as ignorant as you say, how can I know what to address? You WON'T. Exactly as you stated above. You're not a mind-reader, plus you're ignorant. Hence the "work" is ignorable. > >>>>>> 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't >>>>>> do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with >>>>>> measurements. >>>>> >>>>> There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments. >>>> >>>> "baliflu...experments"? >>> >>> Typo. I'm not a touch typist and I have bad eyesight, which affects both >>> my typing and my proofreading. >>> >>> The word I intended is "validly". >> >> You'll have to explain why no observations after 1900 are validly >> designed or interpreted. > > The approximate date is 1840. And I've done it already. I don't think so. > >> Take each one in turn. > > No need. Nor ability. > >>>>>> I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship >>>>>> between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out >>>>>> in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not >>>>>> give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict >>>>>> the mass of a green-light photon, for example. >>>>> >>>>> Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one. >>>>> Read it again, you lying maggot: >>>>> >>>>> Mass >>>>> Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle >>>>> Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + Iw^2), from which the >>>>> photon's mass will be calculable if: >>>>> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or >>>>> wavelength of photons from a source are measured, >>>>> allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #; >>>>> 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf >>>>> replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the >>>>> difference in speed from the value assumed in >>>>> Planck's Law; >>>>> 3 The correct assumptions are made >>>>> about the shape and density of the >>>>> photon, allowing the correct formula to >>>>> be substituted for I and the equation >>>>> rearranged to solve for m. >>>>> >>>>> There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet. >>>> >>>> You don't think the energy, speed, and frequency have been measured? >>> >>> Correct. >> >> What do you think is involved in measuring the energy, the speed, or the >> frequency of light? > > Energy: impact-induced heat increase per photon on a detector. Why heat???? > Speed: Michelson-Morley type of measurement will do. Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't measure the speed of light. Another fine example of you lacking the basics. > Wavelength \ > or > dunno ... colour? > Frequency / And go ahead, let's say it's greenish-blue. How does that tell you either? Don't know? That would be my point. You don't know. > > All from the one source, with no change in any of the conditions > pertaing for the first measurement made. Why do you think that green light from one source is different than green light from another source? > >>>> And you're the only person I know of that is claiming that a photon has >>>> a value of I >>> >>> In *this* theory the photon is a particle. >>> I is the synbol for moment of inertia. >> >> First of all, classical particles do not have a shape or a volume. > > Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory. Then you've invented a new meaning for the word "particle". Tell me what you think "particle" means. > >> In classical physics, a moment of inertia is a property of an extended >> body, NOT a particle, and if you read a basic physics book, you'll see >> that they call out that they are STOPPING treating bodies as particles >> when they introduce rotation and moment of inertia. > > Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory. Then if you're using the moment of inertia from Classical theory and you want to apply it to something that is NOT Classical theory, what's the formula that tells you how to find I? > >> This is another one of the things that I noticed where you have a >> problem with basic concepts > > The problem is yours. This is not Classical theory. This is a new > theory. Pushing foreign "concepts" into it is straw man thinking. You mean like moment of inertia? > > ----snip---- > >>>> So if not you >>>> providing the formula for I and the shape and the density, then who? >>> >>> See 3. >> >> Right, so if YOU are not providing a model for the shape and density of >> the photon then who? > > As I saud: see 3. > > ----snip---- > >>>>>> In fact, because you do not specify the relation between >>>>>> I and m for a photon, you do not even show it is possible >>>>>> to predict the mass of a green-light photon. >>> >>> ----blaf blag snipped---- >>> >>>> Note that you STILL don't have a single quantitative prediction >>>> from your theory. >>> >>> False. However there are none re the mass of particles. BFD. >>> As I said, data are not yet available for them. >> >> You don't believe that we know the mass of a proton, electron, neutron >> and photon? > > Correct. > >> How do you know they even exist? > > I don't. I postulate them. Without evidence? Why? > >>>> Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has >>>> been summarily ignored? >>> >>> How would anyone who's ignored it know that those calculations >>> haven't been made? >> >> Has anyone cited your work in their own publications? Anyone? Are you >> aware that not having your work cited by other authors is what >> constitutes being ignored in the science world? > > You eavde the question. How would anyone who's ignored my work know > that those calculations haven't been made? They wouldn't. If you have them, they should be provided. As it is, what you've provided is so incomplete as to be useless. > >>>>>> 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your >>>>>> experimental proposals will show that the current models are a >>>>>> failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do >>>>>> not do that. >>>>> >>>>> I claim A but I do not do that? >>>>> >>>>> You wanna restate that in English, Bubba? >>>> >>>> Here: You claim that you have presented experimental proposals that will >>>> show that the current models are a failure -- that is, they do not agree >>>> with experiment >>> >>> Show me that claim. >> >> Oh, I'm sure you've scrubbed it by now. :) > > I could have, if I'd made it. But unlike you, I don't lie. > There are tow or three versaions of the theory posted on Usenet? > Accomplished as I am, I can't scrub that. > > Show me that claim. > > ----snip---- > >>> I don't even know that the attractive force you assert has been >>> measured. I'm sure you and the physicists *think* it's been >>> measured. Just as I'm sure that you regard your assumptions >>> as knowledge. >> >> Then you have some reading to do. > > Nope. You do. Those "forces" have never been measured. Bullshit. > > ----snip---- > >> And yes, I see you changing things as I point them out to you. > > There you go: not such an obstinate ignoramus after all. > >>>>>> Thus this statement, which includes an important >>>>>> new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist. >>>>> >>>>> To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist. >>>> >>>> Cite one physicist who declares it's NOT gobbledygook. >>> >>> Cite one physicist who's looked at the website, seen what you saw, >>> and declares that it *is* gobbledygook. >> >> See above about being ignored. > > So your challenge was just more of your prejudicial bullshit, huh? > Quelle surprise. > > ----snip---- > >>>>>> Along with this you make a >>>>>> footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass" >>>>>> which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out >>>>>> elsewhere in this thread. >>>>> >>>>> Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of >>>>> Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. >>>> >>>> What on earth are you talking about? >>> >>> Look below. >>> >>>>> Invariant mass means that the >>>>> centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the >>>>> distance between them and with no other factor. The >>>>> relativistic increase in Mercury's momentum, however, means >>>>> that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its >>>>> perihelion will regress, not precess. > > Twice you've ignored that. Waassa madder, you can't understand it? It's gobbledygook. > > ----posturing snipped---- > -- 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
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