 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / July 2009A condensate is a condensate
I know I know some girls are going to sink into an explosive argument. But nothing suggests that Planck's quantum value itself was at a different value in the more distant past. For perhaps not only matter but even the smallest globule of energy was only permitted to form at a specific energy value through-out spacetime's thermodynamic cooling history. Using the same ideology as to say that a present boson is not permitted to remain alive for long and form into mass since it doesn't fit into the present permissible atomic quantum numbers. On Jul 4, 3:42 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I know I know some girls are going to sink into an explosive argument. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > permitted to remain alive for long and form into mass since it doesn't > fit into the present permissible atomic quantum numbers. Participation in an "argument" is difficult when the premises for the discussion are incomprehensible. Your last paragraph in particular could benefit from the judicious use of punctuiation. You could even rewrite it into two or more sentences. I suggest you pay particular attention to the use of pronouns so that their referents are clearly identifiable. You have not made yourself clear at all to which noun your use of the pronoun "it" in your last paragraph refers; to "ideology," to "boson," or to "mass." Tom Davidson Richmond, VA > On Jul 4, 3:42 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Tom Davidson > Richmond, VA I won't even answer that one. Where but where do these girls come from. Learn the basics of sentence writting and then you'll now. Or perhaps someone else will care to enlighten you on the answer. > I know I know some girls are going to sink into an explosive argument. > > But nothing suggests that Planck's quantum value itself was at a > different value in the more distant past. [snip rest of crap] 1) Hubble 2) Spectroscopy 3) idiot  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > "gu...@hotmail.com" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2) Spectroscopy > 3) idiot Look everyone a girl!!! What part of distant past versus more distant past do you suppose she doesn't understant. Air heads make the best dumb blondes! > > "gu...@hotmail.com" wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Air heads make the best dumb blondes! 1) Hubble: 10 Gyr view into the past. 2) Spectroscopy: E = h(nu), e.g., hydrogen Lyman alpha 3) idiot Ignorance is educable, stooopidity is forever. idiot Hey guskzless - if photons are quantized, why is E = h(nu) a continuous function? Hey guskzless - if photons are not quantized, why are the photoelectric effect and pair formation discrete? Hey guskzless - it's 2009, do you know your a.s from a gopher hole? idiot SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > > "gu...@hotmail.com" wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > continuous function? Hey guskzless - if photons are not quantized, > why are the photoelectric effect and pair formation discrete? The girl can't even read, I never said the photons did not adhere to the planck's quanta. I said the quanta may have been of a different value in the "more" distant past which would have altered light's velocity along it's journey from "more" distant pasts. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.