ahahahaha.... weird "glird" <gl...@aol.com> wrote: On Oct 31, 11:40 pm, "hanson" <hahahah> wrote: <http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW <http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh > -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or contraction, of ---> matter content <--- in normal 3D space , expressed here as reciprocal ---> density <--- 1/rho, will asymptotically default to the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics phenomena as we know them. Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate mathematically that there is ---> no matter content <--- within the confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
glird, the aoler, was not solar when he wrote: BahbahHandson claims that "matter content" = "no matter content". If that wasn't so stoopid it might be laughable...
hanson wrote:
... ahahaha... that only seem to you to be this way, because it was Full Moon when you contemplated the above. However, your interest is commendable unlike your missing understanding. Until Aug 30 2008 you had some rational judgment left in yourself since back then you, glird, wrote: --- "Relativity has a veneer of ignorance, stupidity, and autism. The relativists know nothing, they understand nothing, and they aren't even aware that someone is trying to help them." -- So, what happened to you?..Has Geriatrics or your illicit drug abuse taken its toll on you? Sorry to see that... but thanks for the laughs... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
> > Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then > > produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| > > This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or > > contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed > > here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to > > the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics > > phenomena as we know them.
1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote:
> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
hanson wrote: > > Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate > > mathematically that there is no matter content within a the > > confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary- > > center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain > > is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote:
> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you > so scared of math that you ask characters like KW > and Raemsch for help?
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep! ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you just did. You obviously do not even understand the concept schLep, so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that your are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:28:02 -0800:
> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
> [...]
> I greatly enjoy the superposition of you arguing with someone who has a > PhD in physics about how the person with a PhD doesn't know what he is > talking about.
That is one of your problems. You believed that your idiocy would be cured by obtaining a degree. You believed yui would buy respect. You failed in your goal and left University this Summer being an *undergrad*.
But even if you had obtained a higher degree, this would not hide the lot of nonsenses that you have been posting in Internet for years :_-D
> Tom Roberts wrote on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:24:33 -0500:
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: >>> Second the 'field' equations of GR are not really field equations, not >>> even when written in relaxed form!
>> This is just plain not true, regardless of whatever you mean by >> "relaxed form". The field equation of GR relates fields, making it a >> field equation.
> I do not like to debate stuff with ignorants as you, who lack even the > most elementary knowledge of the topics.
> At least you could show some interest in your education Tom and search > *standard* concepts as "relaxed form" before posting
Link is not working today. Tom, I doubt that you can see that "lrr-2006-3" is a typical code of living reviews journal, knowing your ignorance of literature :-D
For the benefit of your education Tom, I add another link to the "relaxed form" of Einstein equations (see eq 62)
discussing the differences between the Hilbert-Einstein equations in relaxed form [equation 62 in above link, equation 15 in the CSR:20092 report] and the equations of field theory of gravity [equation 41 in the CSR:20092 report]
I will leave this part of your education for another day. Now just start above Tom; familiarizate yourself with the basic stuff FIRST.
Sam Wormley wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:27:32 +0000:
> eric gisse wrote: >> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>> I greatly enjoy the superposition of you arguing with someone who has a >> PhD in physics about how the person with a PhD doesn't know what he is >> talking about.
> I find that amusing also!
It is much more amusing that both you and Eric sniped the part where he 'PhD' [#] affirms that he does not even know what is the "relaxed form" of Einstein equations! :-D
And, of course, both of you sniped the link to the Living Review journal containing the equations that neither him nor both of you know :-D
[#] i.e. the same HEP experimentalist who has said *pearls* such as his claim that c and G are not universal constants in GR but parameters
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > eric gisse wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:28:02 -0800:
>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>> [...]
>> I greatly enjoy the superposition of you arguing with someone who has a >> PhD in physics about how the person with a PhD doesn't know what he is >> talking about.
> That is one of your problems. You believed that your idiocy would be cured > by obtaining a degree. You believed yui would buy respect. You failed in > your goal and left University this Summer being an *undergrad*.
> But even if you had obtained a higher degree, this would not hide the lot > of nonsenses that you have been posting in Internet for years :_-D
Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote: > Sam Wormley wrote on Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:27:32 +0000:
>> eric gisse wrote: >>> Juan R. González-Álvarez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> I greatly enjoy the superposition of you arguing with someone who has a >>> PhD in physics about how the person with a PhD doesn't know what he is >>> talking about.
>> I find that amusing also!
> It is much more amusing that both you and Eric sniped the part where he > 'PhD' [#] affirms that he does not even know what is the "relaxed form" of > Einstein equations! :-D
Which is indicative of what, exactly?
> And, of course, both of you sniped the link to the Living Review journal > containing the equations that neither him nor both of you know :-D
It is perfectly clear you picked the first link off Google, but didn't even bother to check the contents of the link.
> [#] i.e. the same HEP experimentalist who has said *pearls* such as his > [#claim > that c and G are not universal constants in GR but parameters
And your rationale for getting bitchy at a perfectly valid claim is...?
> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> Mel Lep, it > was beyond belief when he read and wrote: >> hanson:
>> > hanson wrote: > <http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW > <http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| >> > Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then >> > produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| >> > This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or >> > contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed >> > here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to >> > the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics >> > phenomena as we know them.
> 1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote: >> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
> hanson wrote: >> > Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate >> > mathematically that there is no matter content within a the >> > confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary- >> > center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain >> > is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
> 2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote: >> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you >> so scared of math that you ask characters like KW >> and Raemsch for help? >>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep! > ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you > just did.
Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones!
> You obviously do not even understand the concept > schLep, so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that > your are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs... > ahahahanson
A pearl for you, hanson: Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
> On Nov 1, 8:09 am, mL <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > I don't know and don't care either. Why would I care about or hate a >> > nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? GR is absurd, and it had nothing to >> > do with Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Einstein >> > the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar was nobody. <shrug>
> Ahahahaha... Does it look like I am obsessed with Einstein the > nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar? No, that is why I label > Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a nitwit, a > plagiarist, and a liar. <shrug>
Gosh - no need to comment.
> You, on the other hand, get all bend out of shape reading Einstein as > a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. The question is that why you > worship Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <shrug>
Me upset by your make ups and screwed opinions there? No. How about you? Do you realize that those stinky labels may be too sticky for you to handle (as indicated by your reactive shruggings).
>> BTW Mr Koobee, in case you see yourself as something more >> than a nobody, what's your achievements in science matters >> such as: >> >> - published science papers > > The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono, > moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However, > these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be > published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy > your whining for the time being?
So, you haven't taken that first step yet. Poor background for a judge on science matter!
>> - professional career > > Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career? > >> - appreciation of fellow scientists > > I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a > liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is > that too much to ask?
> The first step is to publish my post at where trolls like Gisse, Dono, > moortel, Webb, Juanshito, mL, and many others are off limit. However, > these Einstein Dingleberries just would not allow anything to be > published. In time, I will publish some papers. Would that satisfy > your whining for the time being?
You can't even give a literature reference, much less write a scholarly article.
> Does the ever so humble Koobee Wublee have a professional career?
>> - appreciation of fellow scientists
> I don't appreciate anyone worshipping a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a > liar such as Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. Is > that too much to ask?
> hanson skrev: >> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> >> Mel Lep, it was beyond belief when he read and wrote:
>>> > hanson wrote: >> <http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW >> <http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| >>> > Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then >>> > produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| >>> > This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or >>> > contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed >>> > here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to >>> > the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics >>> > phenomena as we know them.
>> 1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote: >>> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
>> hanson wrote: >>> > Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate >>> > mathematically that there is no matter content within a the >>> > confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary- >>> > center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain >>> > is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
> > 2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote: > >> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you > >> so scared of math that you ask characters like KW > >> and Raemsch for help?
> > hanson wrote: > > ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep! > > ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you > > just did.
3rd fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:
> Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones!
hanson wrote:
What fantasy makes you think it's MY baby?... ahahaha... You don't know much, Mel, do you. Keep on schLeping
> > hanson wrote
:> > schLep, you obviously do not even understand the concept
> > so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that you > > are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs... > > ahahahanson
4th pitiful fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:
> A pearl for you, hanson: > Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
hanson wrote:
ahahaha... schLep, you phonily insinuated that you have digested KAM. Yet the trivial expression |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| strikes you as fantasy... ahahahaha... Mel, you don't know much, do you. ahahahahaha... But thanks for the laughs... ahaha ahahahanson
> > hanson skrev: > >> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> > >> Mel Lep, it was beyond belief when he read and wrote:
> >>> > hanson wrote: > >> <http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW > >> <http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| > >>> > Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then > >>> > produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| > >>> > This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or > >>> > contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed > >>> > here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to > >>> > the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics > >>> > phenomena as we know them.
> >> 1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote: > >>> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
> >> hanson wrote: > >>> > Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate > >>> > mathematically that there is no matter content within a the > >>> > confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary- > >>> > center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain > >>> > is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
> > > 2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote: > > >> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you > > >> so scared of math that you ask characters like KW > > >> and Raemsch for help?
> > > hanson wrote: > > > ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep! > > > ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you > > > just did.
> 3rd fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:> Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones!
> hanson wrote:
> What fantasy makes you think it's MY baby?... ahahaha... > You don't know much, Mel, do you. Keep on schLeping
> > > hanson wrote
> :> > schLep, you obviously do not even understand the concept> > so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that you > > > are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs... > > > ahahahanson
> 4th pitiful fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:> A pearl for you, hanson: > > Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
> hanson wrote:
> ahahaha... schLep, you phonily insinuated that you have digested > KAM. Yet the trivial expression |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| strikes > you as fantasy... ahahahaha... Mel, you don't know much, do you. > ahahahahaha... But thanks for the laughs... ahaha ahahahanson
------------------ Hi Hanson ! can you give me a hand to find out who are the anonymous crooks ''Inertial''
> > > hanson skrev: > > >> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> > > >> Mel Lep, it was beyond belief when he read and wrote:
> > >>> > hanson wrote: > > >> <http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW > > >> <http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| > > >>> > Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then > > >>> > produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| > > >>> > This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or > > >>> > contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed > > >>> > here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to > > >>> > the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics > > >>> > phenomena as we know them.
> > >> 1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote: > > >>> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
> > >> hanson wrote: > > >>> > Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate > > >>> > mathematically that there is no matter content within a the > > >>> > confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary- > > >>> > center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain > > >>> > is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
> > > > 2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote: > > > >> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you > > > >> so scared of math that you ask characters like KW > > > >> and Raemsch for help?
> > > > hanson wrote: > > > > ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep! > > > > ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you > > > > just did.
> > 3rd fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:> Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones!
> > hanson wrote:
> > What fantasy makes you think it's MY baby?... ahahaha... > > You don't know much, Mel, do you. Keep on schLeping
> > > > hanson wrote
> > :> > schLep, you obviously do not even understand the concept> > so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that you > > > > are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs... > > > > ahahahanson
> > 4th pitiful fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote:> A pearl for you, hanson: > > > Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on.
> > hanson wrote:
> > ahahaha... schLep, you phonily insinuated that you have digested > > KAM. Yet the trivial expression |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| strikes > > you as fantasy... ahahahaha... Mel, you don't know much, do you. > > ahahahahaha... But thanks for the laughs... ahaha ahahahanson
> ------------------ > Hi Hanson ! > can you give me a hand to find out > who are the anonymous crooks > ''Inertial''
> and '''Aleph'' ??
> TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Limited gravity. Acceleratiuon is limited to below light speed at the extreme of the strength of gravity. Limted gravity prevents black hole theory.
in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a- ------------------ Hi Hanson ! can you give me a hand to find out who are the anonymous crooks ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ?? TIA Y.Porat -------------------------------
hanson wrote:
... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
> Mel schLep "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> wrote: >> hanson skrev: >>> ahahahaha... AHAHAHA....For "mL" <mL.bey...@elsewhere.xxx> Mel Lep, >>> it was beyond belief when he read and wrote:
>>>> > hanson wrote: >>> <http://tinyurl.com/yjlxhtd> --> Barycenter --- KW >>> <http://tinyurl.com/yjbpwrh> -- <|||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| >>>> > Raemsch, if you wish to sell your weltbild about the issue then >>>> > produce some math about it. Start with |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| >>>> > This says ~ that the spatial acceleration, (dt^2) of expansion or >>>> > contraction, of matter content in normal 3D space , expressed >>>> > here as reciprocal density, 1/rho, will asymptotically default to >>>> > the numerical value of Newton's G... producing our regular physics >>>> > phenomena as we know them.
>>> 1st clumsy fishing attempt by Mel Lep, the schlep, who wrote: >>>> Funny fantasies, but please continue.
>>> hanson wrote: >>>> > Show examples of this along the way and you'll demonstrate >>>> > mathematically that there is no matter content within a the >>>> > confines of a so-called black hole. To connect this to the bary- >>>> > center of the particles/bodies that make up this spatial domain >>>> > is the next step. Show the math. Don't lament.... ahahahanson
>> > 2nd attempt by schLep, who wrote: >> >> Why don't you do the derivation yourself? Are you >> >> so scared of math that you ask characters like KW >> >> and Raemsch for help?
>> > hanson wrote: >> > ahahahaha... You committed a Freudian Slip here, schLep! >> > ahahaha... Do it instead of asking the gauche way, like you >> > just did.
> 3rd fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote: >> Why should I? It's your baby, lazybones! >>
> hanson wrote:
> What fantasy makes you think it's MY baby?... ahahaha... > You don't know much, Mel, do you. Keep on schLeping
That's right, deny all responsibility.
>> > hanson wrote > :> > schLep, you obviously do not even understand the concept >> > so why should I throw my pearls before the swine that you > >> are?... Try harder, schLep. Till then thanks for the laughs... >> > ahahahanson
> 4th pitiful fishing attempt by schLep, who wrote: >> A pearl for you, hanson: >> Look up KAM theory (and its extensions), digest it, and move on. >>
> hanson wrote:
> ahahaha... schLep, you phonily insinuated that you have digested KAM. > Yet the trivial expression |||| d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> G |||| strikes you > as fantasy... ahahahaha... Mel, you don't know much, do you. > ahahahahaha... But thanks for the laughs... ahaha ahahahanson
Why not d^2(1/rho)/dt^2 -> f(alpha)G, where alpha is the fine-structure constant, or some dimensionless quantity appearing in your (still living?) aether approach?
> in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a- > ------------------ > Hi Hanson ! > can you give me a hand to find out > who are the anonymous crooks > ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ?? > TIA > Y.Porat > -------------------------------hanson wrote:
> ... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it > is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit > out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
> On Nov 2, 7:21 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote: >> Yehiel "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a- >> ------------------ >> Hi Hanson ! >> can you give me a hand to find out >> who are the anonymous crooks >> ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ?? >> TIA >> Y.Porat >> -------------------------------hanson wrote:
>> ... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it >> is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit >> out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
> Thanks Hanson > that is as well what i thought
Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he keeps hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
>>> in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a- >>> ------------------ >>> Hi Hanson ! >>> can you give me a hand to find out >>> who are the anonymous crooks >>> ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ?? >>> TIA >>> Y.Porat >>> -------------------------------hanson wrote:
>>> ... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it >>> is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit >>> out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
>> Thanks Hanson >> that is as well what i thought
> Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he keeps > hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly. It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup now and then!
> > in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a- > > ------------------ > > Hi Hanson ! > > can you give me a hand to find out > > who are the anonymous crooks > > ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ?? > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------------hanson wrote:
> > ... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it > > is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit > > out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
> Thanks Hanson > that is as well what i thought
> ATB > Y.Porat > -----------------------------
electrons do circle in the round atomic shells. But not all of the time. Only durring magnetic alighnment.
Brownian motions of electrons in the shells is what they return to. Momentum as they collide in the shell.
> >>> in message news:19a10a48-be0e-46b4-b25a- > >>> ------------------ > >>> Hi Hanson ! > >>> can you give me a hand to find out > >>> who are the anonymous crooks > >>> ''Inertial'' and '''Aleph'' ?? > >>> TIA > >>> Y.Porat > >>> -------------------------------hanson wrote:
> >>> ... ahahahaha... ALWAYS, Yehi, always assume that it > >>> is old Mike Varney. Right or wrong, it cranks the shit > >>> out of him and them. Take care old buddy.. ahahahanson
> >> Thanks Hanson > >> that is as well what i thought
> > Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he keeps > > hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
> Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly. > It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup > now and then!
-------------------- Hi orchestra conductor miserable parrot:
TELL ME WHO ARE YOUR HEROES AND I WILL TELL YOU **WHO ARE YOU !!** btw you have some greetings from your Higgs Bosons
On Nov 3, 9:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote: > > Inertial wrote:
> >> Who is Mike Varney, and why is Porat so obsessed with him that he > >> keeps hoping this Varney person has returned? Were they lovers?
> > Mike is a PhD physicist that doesn't suffer fools gladly. > > It is a lot of fun when Mike pops in to visit the newsgroup > > now and then!
> Maybe, just maybe, Mike is here now!
---------------- and his new name is Alpha 9though he is not intelligent enough to know what is the origin of that name he chose for himself that fucken PHd of yours never talks physics !! only personal abuse 2 he as well as you has some greetings from your Higges Bosons and you dont deserve more than that !! Y.P ---------------------------------
|
