archi's 'theory', -is- that quantum mechanics
can be derived from the maxwell equations.

you are trying to be chief moderator in
an unmoderated newsgroup and doing
a poor job of it.

and below you say this:

# I don't mind intelligent cross posting.

so, why you're wasting time posting some blurb
about how crossposting is bad form is not very "intelligent"

you like crossposting if it fits your opinion

of what is acceptable and 'intelligent'

but if someone else has a different opinon of acceptable and
intelligent, you start pissing and moaning and whining about
how it's abusively off topic.

now, here's how you describe archi;

==
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/8JXMY9nMKHk/GCNlRPJLpXQJ
you say;

now i ask you, -who- _really_ looks like the "self absorbed egotist?"

isn't it really =you= who looks like a "self absorbed egotist"

in that you think that you and you alone are able to decide what
is on topic in electromag whereas archi simply minds his own
business and quietly posts his babblings where he
thinks they are topical?

yes, -you- look like the self absorbed egotists and archi does not.

i vandalized nothing, and why you keep posting in to a thread

that you have flagged for abuse is asinine.

generate a magnetic field of sorts.

strange things have happened, with copper coils and magnets

you are still wrong to flag archi's posts for abuse
as none of them fit the criteria for abuse as set
out -by- googlegroups.

===
Report Abuse

Google takes abuse of its services very seriously.
We're committed to dealing with such abuse according
to the laws in your country of residence. When you
submit a report, we'll investigate it and take the
appropriate action. We'll get back to you only if
we require additional details or have more information to share.

Group name: sci.physics.electromag
Subject: is Google committing a crime of freedom of speech??
Author: Archimedes Plutonium

Not abuse
This content has been incorrectly marked as abuse
and does not contain any of the following:

Spam
Hateful or violent content
Illegal pornography
Personal or private information
Illegal content according to the laws of my country
Content violating our Terms of Service
===

what would you call someone who takes it upon itself
to make topicallity decisions for other people
in an unmoderated usenet newsgroup?

junior napolean?

self appointed tryant?

certainly not a ...

read more »

read more »

archi seems to insult you and you cry about it.

boo hoo hoo

"archi's been calling us names and we just can't take it any more"

aw here's a hankerchief doood...

you say he calls you idiots and fakers, and this is a -form- of debate

evidently, in your hurt at being called a faker

you can't bring any real argument against his posts

 -aside- from them being "off topic"

maybe this is -why- he calls you fajkers in the first place

because all you do is call his posts off topic
and never actually address what is being said

and if they are so shalow as you'd like to believe,
it should be trivial to make 'refute' his statements

does this mean he -has- to, then, stop posting his statements?

why don't you try that and find out

you'll have trouble doing so

as some peopel may actually belive that teh physical reality
has a mathematical underpinning that can be discovered
in teh strangest places.

and removing posts from an archive is not a complaint that can ever be
reconciled

it's just one sided coercion

and archi's posts -do- have mathematical
information even if you don't see formulae.

do you even know what symmettry and group theory -are-?

now, ggogle claims there are over 50000 subscribers to sci.math

http://tinyurl.com/arx2zum

http://tinyurl.com/arx2zum

and if you actually look at sci.math you see a handful of posters

how is a handful of disgruntled -posters-

 -most- of over 50000 subscribers?

and leave archi to -his- hobby

you have yet to show me -how- you will get the vote

from the over 50000 subscribers who -never- post.

you seem to be in the habit of carrying out false inductuons

"what's true for me is true for 50000 subscribers"

not to worry, it is a common failing in usenetland...

now, brace yourself, as this may just destroy my credibility...but

i do not have an iphone

i do actually have a CB radio stashed in the corner somewhere but,
i never did manage to hook it in to my car those many years ago,
so, it sits collecting dust, althouygh i did manage to plug it
in to a train set AC to DC transformer, so, i have picked up
radio signals from a passing trucker once or twice, but
never did get around to using it to avoid speed traps,
and anyway, i drive really slowly, cuz that's the law.

oh, why does the iphone give you the most headaches when trying to see
www?

it probably just doesn't have the capacity it itself to carry out
memory intensive tasks and is mainly a receiver and when it
has to cut corners it jettisons anything heavier than a than a twig.

but, what i'd still like to know, is

how do you propose to assign an integral spin quantum state

to a dust cloud?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/hX...
"""palladium superconducts and also has a subshell switch then the
crystal geometry of a 4d8, 5s2 should be altogether very much
different from 4d10"""

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.electromag/8_yr5FTLxz4/Rj...
"""So as we cool Helium-4 to that of 2 Kelvin, why would one of the
electrons convert from its down spin to be a up spin and have two up
spins in that suborbital?"""

see, you speak of spin states orbital population
and these spin states and orbital populations are
best described -by- an integral electron and not by
any sort of dust cloud.

some of this next bit is a little scattered...

no, -not- like a so-called electron dust cloud...

the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-

descriptive -of- the =probability density=

where the =probability density= is a function of the
-probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.

the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
 that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
 strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.

part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.

this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.

it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
 smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.

i'm certainly glad that you do -not- think that the "electron cloud"

is actually a myriad of electrons surrounding a nucleus

but neither is it representative of a smashed electron.

it is...now get this,

it, the "electron cloud," is only a descriptive -device-

and it is descriptive of,...the =probability density=

electron has a probability of being not in a specific spot,

but a specific spacial -region-

as far as what -i- think about an "electron"

an electron could be a phantom

that is solely descriptive of force field interactions

and some mathematical models "work" which attest to its,

the electrons, "reality"

see, and what you are suggesting is that, the electronic orbitals
are really spacial regions with electronic force behaviors spread
out along the entire region and that there really is no electron
to speak of at all.

-not- that there is some sort of disintegrated ball
scattered throughout such a spacial region, with some
unknwoable elctronic charge associate with each
shattered and scattered fragment.

and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
fields align in discrete energy levels and not
a continuous spectrum.

any "cloud" is only a -portrayal- of
the =probability density= associated with
said electronic state.

it is a representation of a =probability density=
and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.

these spacial regions are solutions to
the angular momentum harmonics of the
hydrogen/like shroedinger equation

there is no =cloud= of electrons inhabittting

-any- electronic orbital.

there are two at most inhabitting
the s orbitals the three p orbitals
the 5 d orbitals... etc f g h

    you like to mention on occasion,
    the "aufbau" principle of ordering
    but this concerns that they go in
    one at a time and then double up.

usually you may see these harmonics orbitals
with a spherical shape for the s orbitals

three dumbbell shapes for the p orbitals
one aligned with each axis and a series
of sort of like clover shapes for the ds with
one sort of having a torus shape around the center.

-sometimes- they don't show solid color representation,
but a hazy looking cloudy apearance but this in no way
suggests that an gigantic number of electrons may
inhabit -any- electronic orbital,

so, your simile;

"whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies"

is simply well short of even metaphorical exactitude.

if you are looking at a =picture= of the electronic orbitals
and someone has represented these orbitals as dot-clouds and
 -you- are drawing the conclusion that there are actually
a cloud of electrons inhabitting a given orbital,
you have tricked your self.

but, i find this difficult to believe.

then say "psi" because electron dot cloud
is a reprsentation of the...=probability density=
associated with the given discrete energy levels

this is because the location is...probabalistic

i'm sure you -must- realize this, but you seem
to like carrying on this charade for some strange reason.

these waveforms are discrete energy levels and galaxies
are not arranged in this manner around any central
universal location.

show me the central nucleus of the universe

show me how galaxy's charge densities
 perturb the locations of each other

show me how any of these galaxies behave as
a "rigid rotor" attached to this central
 nuclear-like region of the universe.

show me how any of these galaxies are behaving
as harmonic oscillators with this central
nuclear region of the universe.

short of anything like these, your universal atom theory

is just another cosmical imaginary meandering.

the -behaviors- are not at all similar.

Bohr theory which actually does have a single electron
orbitting a nucleus in a manner somewhat like that of
planetary motion, fails outside of this single case.

admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.

our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.

there is no cloud of elctons orbitting any nucleus.

there is a region of =probability density=

which is -portrayed= by some as a cloud but which
does -not- even begin to sugget that a cloud of
electrons actually inhabit a given
electronic orbital.

-you- are making it sound as if there are
trillions of electrons inhabitting a -single- orbital

when it is strictly -impossible- some say, "forbidden"
for more that -two- to inhabit a given elecronic orbital

i say again, -please- change your 'sig file.

it is misleading.

but, buy all means, if accuracy is not
your main concern, then keep on making
this allusion.

there is never any real moment when an electron
is a smashed cloud of 10^40 tiny pieces

we cannot successfully predict position
and momentum of such particles simultaneously.

you don't seem to be implying the the nucleus
is ever considered as an exploded dust cloud of minutia

so, think about why you don't tell me that the nucleus
of an atom is dispersed over space.

do you suspect that it is because we have
such a greater idea of where it is?

i bet you can see how frightfully disturbing
it would be to model the nucleus as this
sort of dust cloud.

you'd have bits of proton intermixed
in the electronic orbitals.

for some strange reason, the angular momentum
harmonics seem to consider the proton/nucleus
as fixed in the central region and the
electron orbitting that region in a
 -probabalistic- manner.

see, think about how your dust cloud would be
when you have =2= electrons in a single orbital

you would undoubtably have some violation
of Pauli exclusion going on, with some oddball
sharing of the 4 principle quantum numbers
being an inevitable outcome.

etc.

at -best- you'd be considering the energetic
 wave form pattern as a diffuse discrete packet.

-not- as if an electron was scattered in the breeze.

you might like to look into molecular orbital theory
and ...

read more »

if you just look at this thread;

[thread i just posted excerpts from]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ

you see all of archi's posts flagged as abusive

and none of mine are so flagged even though arcghi is replying -to- -me-
and posts at the bottom of the thread that have nothing to do with
the topic even,  are not flagged as abusive

but -only- archi's posts.

if that's not just plain wrong,

i don't know what else to call it.

albeit, the mad post flagger has now
taken to flagging my posts as well

so, this thread will likely get flagged soon anyway

after all, the self appointed moderator

 has -his- standards of cleanliness to uphold.

as you will notice, -only- archi's psosts are flagged for abuse.

=================================================================

spin in physics with monopoles existing Chapt13.4.01 Particle Physics
table #897 New Physics #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed  
25 posts by 8 authors in sci.chem

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14

-please- fix you .sig file.

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: nonphysicists who open their mouths in physics Re: #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

it is a representation of a =probability density=
and -not- a representation of a -number- of electrons
actually inhabitting electronic orbitals.

these spacial regions are solutions to
the angular momentum harmonics of the
hydrogen/like shroedinger equation

there is no =cloud= of electrons inhabittting

-any- electronic orbital.

there are two at most inhabitting
the s orbitals the three p orbitals
the 5 d orbitals... etc f g h

    you like to mention on occasion,
    the "aufbau" principle of ordering
    but this concerns that they go in
    one at a time and then double up.

usually you may see these harmonics orbitals
with a spherical shape for the s orbitals

three dumbbell shapes for the p orbitals
one aligned with each axis and a series
of sort of like clover shapes for the ds with
one sort of having a torus shape around the center.

-sometimes- they don't show solid color representation,
but a hazy looking cloudy apearance but this in no way
suggests that an gigantic number of electrons may
inhabit -any- electronic orbital,

so, your simile;

"whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies"

is simply well short of even metaphorical exactitude.

if you are looking at a =picture= of the electronic orbitals
and someone has represented these orbitals as dot-clouds and
 -you- are drawing the conclusion that there are actually
a cloud of electrons inhabitting a given orbital,
you have tricked your self.

but, i find this difficult to believe.

this is because the location is...probabalistic

i'm sure you -must- realize this, but you seem
to like carrying on this charade for some strange reason.

these waveforms are discrete energy levels and galaxies
are not arranged in this manner around any central
universal location.

show me the central nucleus of the universe

show me how galaxy's charge densities
 perturb the locations of each other

show me how any of these galaxies behave as
a "rigid rotor" attached to this central
 nuclear-like region of the universe.

show me how any of these galaxies are behaving
as harmonic oscillators with this central
nuclear region of the universe.

short of anything like these, your universal atom theory

is just another cosmical imaginary meandering.

the -behaviors- are not at all similar.

admit it, Archimedes, you metaphor is wholly unworkable
as a true representation of any actual reality.

our solar system doesn't even behave in a manner
consistent with the wave forms of the hydrogenlike atom.

there is a region of =probability density=

which is -portrayed= by some as a cloud but which
does -not- even begin to sugget that a cloud of
electrons actually inhabit a given
electronic orbital.

-you- are making it sound as if there are
trillions of electrons inhabitting a -single- orbital

when it is strictly -impossible- some say, "forbidden"
for more that -two- to inhabit a given elecronic orbital

i say again, -please- change your 'sig file.

it is misleading.

but, buy all means, if accuracy is not
your main concern, then keep on making
this allusion.

etc.

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

- show quoted text -
the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-

descriptive -of- the =probability density=

where the =probability density= is a function of the
-probability- of finding one electron in a given spacial region.

the -reason- that some people show this as a cloud of dots is
 that the harmonic orbitals give us only upwards of 90% certainty
of finding the electron and so, the closed space images are not,
 strictly speaking, the truest picture of what is actually going on.

part of this is due to the fact that an "infinite series" is
integrated only up to two or three terms and the successive
terms are truncated and left off and not integrated.

this is considered "ok" because the first two or three terms
of the infinite series take the lion's share of the probability
and the remaining terms quickly diminish to a negligible state.

it has ZERO to do with any idea of smashing an electron to
 smithereenies and imagining the smashed up electron
actually forms a dust cloud around the nucleus.

i'm certainly glad that you do -not- think that the "electron cloud"

is actually a myriad of electrons surrounding a nucleus

but neither is it representative of a smashed electron.

it is...now get this,

it, the "electron cloud," is only a descriptive -device-

and it is descriptive of,...the =probability density=

as far as what -i- think about an "electron"

an electron could be a phantom

that is solely descriptive of force field interactions

and some mathematical models "work" which attest to its,

the electrons, "reality"

see, and what you are suggesting is that, the electronic orbitals
are really spacial regions with electronic force behaviors spread
out along the entire region and that there really is no electron
to speak of at all.

-not- that there is some sort of disintegrated ball
scattered throughout such a spacial region, with some
unknwoable elctronic charge associate with each
shattered and scattered fragment.

and, the large objects which make up galaxies and stars
and galaxie clusters are operating in a gravitational field
and the electronic interactions are negligible and the chemical
atomic forces are electronic and the gravitational effect is
negligible and you have yet to show me how gravitational
fields align in discrete energy levels and not
a continuous spectrum. ...

read more »

 if you just look at this thread;

 [thread i just posted excerpts from]

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.chem/G_ts-y6KiBM/nz-IXX_Lr9UJ

==

but this is how it was this morning, before anyone else gets to it...

as you will notice, -only- archi's psosts are flagged for abuse.

-only- archi is singled out and flagged...

all the rest are "sign in to reply"

=================================================================

spin in physics with monopoles existing Chapt13.4.01 Particle Physics
table #897 New Physics #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed  
25 posts by 8 authors in sci.chem

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply   not flagged
Sep 14

-please- fix you .sig file.

=

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: nonphysicists who open their mouths in physics Re: #1017 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

etc.

=

Sep 14
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

- show quoted text -
the "electron cloud" -is- a descriptive -device-

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

no animals will be hurt during
the course of these next
several sentences.

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 14
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

"classical mechanics" simply does not work as the 'best explanation'
when applied to teh behaviors of very small things, like electrons,
and, so-called "quantum mechanics" was developed to provide a more
correct explanation for phenomenon associated with
very small objects and light.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

Sep 15
Archimedes Plutonium
This message has been hidden because it was flagged for abuse. To see it anyway, click here.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 15
Re: electrons don't look like anything as they cannot be seen

Michael Moroney         Sign in to reply
Sep 15

He just took the diagram (way) too literally.

=

David Bostwick  Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com-> wrote in
news:5053E507.4EEF@lycos.com-:

Tim, give up.  You will never persuade AP that he's wrong.  Don Quixote
will defeat the windmill first.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: the wave nature of Don Quixote

=

Brian Salter-Duke       Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 09:13:05 -0500,

--
      Brian Salter-Duke          Melbourne, Australia
    My real address is b_duke(AT)bigpond(DOT)net(DOT)au
               Use this for reply or followup
  Collaborating with chemists in Melbourne and World-wide

=

Salmon Egg      Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

In article <GDN5s.1331$Wo3...@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>,
 Brian Salter-Duke <b_d...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:

--

Sam

Conservatives are against Darwinism but for natural selection.
Liberals are for Darwinism but totally against any selection.

=

Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway   Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

--

Sam

==============================================
Chiral Idiot!

Feel better now?
-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

hanson  Sign in to reply
Sep 17
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

=

David Bostwick  Sign in to reply
Sep 18
Re: mistake of not knowing ...

"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in news:k38pcv$a5d$1...@dont-email.me:
- show quoted text -
Boy, this is like old home week.

=

Timothy Sutter  Sign in to reply
Sep 19
Re: the wave nature of Don Quixote

http://tinyurl.com/carvone-twins

          |  O          O   |  
        // \//          \\ / \\
        |   |             |   |
         \ /               \ /
          |                 |
         / \\             // \

      (+)carvone        (-) carvone
    oil of caraway    oil of spearmint

====================================================

but a personal vendetta against archi

and one to which is maintain my disagreement.

if topicallity were at issue

the chit chat at the end would have been flagged, it was not.

this is just plain flat out wrong.

seeing as how, in the above thread

-only- archie is flagged as abusive

and quite a few 'regular posters' in the physics groups
pipe up with comments not at all related to electromag
or physics in general for that matter,
and are -not- flaggged for abuse.

and none of -my- posts are flagged.

i wouldn't care past tomorrow

but, people have taken it upon
themselves to archive usenet

and it would be nice to know that said archive
wasn't being tampered with because a tampered
with archive doesn't do much good if someone
wants to run up on me in twenty years and say;

"ay, tim, twenty years ago you said -this-, what say ye now?"

and then, i gotta look through my own -private- archive
to see whether or not i actually did, in fact, say "this"

cuz it could have been tampered with...

it matters little if that will never likely happen...

but, i don't actually like being flagged for abuse -now-
-just- because i side with archi, a person for whom
you have this vendetta...

and then you'll piss and moan when things turn sour for -you-

and -i- get to be labeled a "bad guy" ....again

well, you have difficulty convincing -me- of -that-

"with regards to captain dunsel"

seeing as how, in the above thread

-only- archie is flagged as abusive

and quite a few 'regular posters' in the physics groups
pipe up with comments not at all related to electromag
or physics in general for that matter,
and are -not- flaggged for abuse.

and none of -my- posts are flagged.

=========================================

Have you read this?
http://www.harley.com/usenet/usenet-tutorial/how-does-usenet-work.html

 let's say you compose an article for a particular newsgroup. When the article is finished, your newsreader will send it to your news server. Some time later, from a few minutes to a few hours, your news server will connect to another news server. At that time, your server will send a copy of your article to the other server. At the same time, the other server will pass on articles to your server. Eventually, the other server will connect to a third server and send it a copy of your article. Most news servers connect to only one or two other computers. But some news servers act as switching points by connecting to many other servers. When your article hits one of these major servers, it will fan out quickly to many different locations.

In this way, new articles are passed from one server to another, until they are PROPAGATED around the world. (Each article has a unique identification number so a server doesn't get more than one copy of the same article.) The system is designed so well that — although there is no central server and no one in charge — a new article will be distributed throughout most of the Internet within a day or two (and often much faster).

Google is one of many news servers and it archives posts that are
too old for others to retain, something that was previously done
by AT&T, IIRC.

Google has mapped the world, but the world is far bigger than
Google. The territory is always bigger than the map.

If you want to research this “flag for abuse” it might be a good
idea not to jump to conclusions about Google and assign blame
I suggest you start here:
 http://www.harley.com/usenet/

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8JXMY9nMKHk/kQ_2MXhSseMJ

so explanations about other archives is unnecessary

the problem here, is, that, there are people who

 post -from- gogglegroups and have googlegroup accounts

and read from google and have their posts flagged
for abue at google and wonder if their posts have dissapeared forever.

i've already mentioned to archi, if he didn't know,
 that his posts were still visible -somewhere-

google is archiving usenet posts -and- is allowing
 people to post -to- usenet from googlegroups

and so, some people's posts are being hidden
in the very place they post  from at.

google -has- installed a tool that makes
this sort of vindictiveness possible.

so, it is not a problem with all of usenet and
all possible usenet archives but google alone.

no faultu conclusion jumping at all.

google ahs installed a tool on their
site that has harmful uses

this is not about what drexel does with its archive
or what any of the many other archives do with their sites.

clear enough?

"regards to captain dunsel?"

be cuz, though this thing may have harmful uses

it's really quite use less and does nothing in the over all sense

and posts still appear...somewhere
and they all live happily ever after

so, -i- certainly haven't been 'hurt'
and neither has archi...really

i'm -trying- to get that through to the people
who keep flagging usenet posts that appear on
googlegroups as abusive.

you're wasting your bloody time on some toy trick
that may make you 'feel' 'good' for a matter of moments

and then, tomorrow, archi is back on his couch,
posting away and you've done =NOTHING= to disturb this.

and the posts don't even disappear cuz google drags
 its feet for years to ever actually investigate anything

=NOTHING= has been accomplished....

-i- just felt like posting and so, i did...

simple as that.

so, at least -i- got -my- soothing relaxation from posting ...

and all the abuse flags in the world won't change that...

i wouldn't care if a million people set up googlegroups
and moderated them fastidiously and saw to it that
nothing that bothered them ever appeared
in their little worlds.

not a bit would this bother me.

but, usenet is -not- googlegroups and
 in large part usenet is not moderated.

and if you look at the config groups, they seem
to be phasing out moderated usenet entirely
simply becauise it's stoopid...

etc.etc.etc.

i mean, talk about a fool's game...

trying to lock down order on uselessnet

you'll end up putting up with things from your
'friends' that you won't put up with in anyone else

have three sets of laws and claim there
 is some sort of 'charter' being obeyed.

so, if this is an "evolving" society

it sure seems to find its way back in to
the exact same pitfalls over and over
and over again and no real gradual
change is ever noted.

Q      E      D

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.math/8JXMY9nMKHk/kQ_2MXhSseMJ

so explanations about other archives is unnecessary

the problem here, is, that, there are people who

post -from- gogglegroups and have googlegroup accounts

and read from google and have their posts flagged
for abue at google and wonder if their posts have dissapeared forever.

i've already mentioned to archi, if he didn't know,
that his posts were still visible -somewhere-

google is archiving usenet posts -and- is allowing
people to post -to- usenet from googlegroups

and so, some people's posts are being hidden
in the very place they post  from at.

google -has- installed a tool that makes
this sort of vindictiveness possible.

so, it is not a problem with all of usenet and
all possible usenet archives but google alone.

no faultu conclusion jumping at all.

google ahs installed a tool on their
site that has harmful uses

this is not about what drexel does with its archive
or what any of the many other archives do with their sites.

clear enough?

=====================================
It is very clear you are a fucking idiot not worth trying to
reason with. Piss off, arsehole.
*plonk*

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

read more »

"Flagging posts fairly in sci.physic.electromag"
<http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.electromag/browse_frm/
thread/e16910ba23c923ef#>

Of course, Archie didn't participate in the discussion. And neither
did you for that matter, which isn't surprising because you're not a
regular in sci.physics.electromag, are you?

I'm assuming it was you who decided to post 20 of Archie's precious
posts in sci.physics.electromag. And then didn't bother to reply to
one of my questions there. Of course, it might not be you in which
case I'm wrong and I apologise for jumping to the wrong conclusion.
The other possibility is that it was indeed you and you have no
interest whatsoever in participating in sci.physics.electromag, yet
you decided to dump on it.

read more »

teh "interpretation" of psi is this statistical 'maybe'
as opposed to an 'exact' location.

it's a matter of the precision of knowledge
 that may be had for a single particulate.

the electron -is- a single hard body whose position and momentum
are statistical probability patterns, and not that an electron
exists as a hard ball sometimes and as 10^40 slivers at any other time.

they =interpret= the meaning of psi and psi squared, and that
interpretation reveals that a statistical understanding of
the electron's whereabouts in reality is the best we can hope for.

you'd be saying, "at such and such a point, this -sliver-
is moving with such and such a simulataneous, -knowable-
 position and momentum" and -then- turn around and tell
 me that you -cannot- know these same facts
for a solid ball electron.

your "interpretation" takes a problem that is unsolvable
for a single entire electron, and makes it solvable for
the smaller fractional -pieces- of that same electron.

you'd think that this was -obviously- erroneous...

and i dare say, that halliday and resnick are not
responsible for this "interpretation" of yours.

did you ever hear anyone say that a bowling ball's
motion would have a measurable wavelength if you
could get a grating to accomodate the value?

this is saying that a solid bowling ball, already should -have-
an associated wavelength and not that the same bowling ball,
suddenly -behaves- as if it were an ethereal wave pattern
under cetrainconditions, whereupon, it returns to it's
bowling ball condition after midnight.

so, once again, if you claim that the -electron- behaves
as a mass of 10^40 slivers, each of whose positions and momenta,
 -can be- known simultaneously, you are taking a much more
difficult problem and sayingit is easier to solve for
the unsolvable nature of the ball type electron.

you'd be saying that, though we cannot know the position
and momentum of a ball electron simultaneously, you
-can- know these same phenomenon for the fractured
 -pieces- of a ball electron.

and, isn't this what you are saying?

and, isn't this "interpretation" self contradictory?

read more »

the thread =clearly= shows that
the intent of the abuse flagging
is =not= topicallity

but a personal vendetta against archi

and one to which is maintain my disagreement.

if topicallity were at issue

the chit chat at the end would have been flagged, it was not.

this is just plain flat out wrong.

you see all of archi's posts flagged as abusive

and none of mine are so flagged even though arcghi is replying -to- -me-
and posts at the bottom of the thread that have nothing to do with
the topic even,  are not flagged as abusive

but -only- archi's posts.

if that's not just plain wrong,

i don't know what else to call it.

albeit, the mad post flagger has now
taken to flagging my posts as well

so, this thread will likely get flagged soon anyway

after all, the self appointed moderator

 has -his- standards of cleanliness to uphold.

Larry.

one view;
coded instruction sets are an
intrinsic attribute of Nature.

one view;
coded instruction sets are used
in the construction of Nature.

are instructions given or are instructions ever present?

how are coded instruction sets best represented?

coded instruction sets  --->  non-personal configurations

coded instruction sets  --->  conscious conceptions

that is part of the problem, in that it
does not seem to matter how one describes
coded instruction sets, be they tools in
a box or the conceptions of mind, to
initiate operation is a characteristic
of conscious intent.

        OFF    | / |    ON

how many ways can chemicals be assembled
producing the functionality of a spleen?

if non-specific make-up can be shown
for specific function, then similar
make-up becomes a significant datum.

if similar function requires similar make-up,
then similar make-up is of no real significance.

it seems as if specific function
        demands specific make-up.

that creatures that have outward appearing
similarities are also similar on the
molecular level is to be expected.

if one could show two creatures which were
very similar in appearance and function and
yet markedly different on the molecular level
this would be somewhat more significant.

still not an evidence that either could have
arisen by random happenstance, however.

oh, and as far as this monkey business,

apprently one would have to suggest
a rather -immediate- speciation followed
by some slow and gradual genomic shift.

etc.

eats respires and replicates and moves

and proceed to chop it down to the smallest
'thing/organism' that eats respires replicates
and moves

and find out what 'bit' of 'it'

if removed, will prevent this 'thing/organism'
from continuing to eat respire replicate an move.

but, you may also find that there are more than
one 'site' which, if removed, will 'kill' the 'organism'

so, that's the backward regression,

and now, you'd like to say;

"this is the very smallest 'organism'

that can eat respire replicate, and move

and then, find a way of having components of -it-

self assemble in aqueaous solution.

and now your back to the "phantom mechanism" again

as, without doubt, if the components do -not-

eat respire and replicate and move

the chances of these components

self assembling as -in-

the process of replication

is nil.

if you chop away the component that

facillitates assembly of replicants

then it ain't gunna self assemble from scratch...

end game...

y'ain't got 'it'

if you'd like, you can truncate 'eats and respires'

in to a single phenomenon

eats and replicates

"this thing eats and replicates"

"these are the components of this
'thing' that eats and replicates"

"now, we dump these components into aqueous solution,
and, they sit there and stare at us, and no
respiring/replicating organism emerges"

"days later, still nothing"

"months later, still nothing"

"years la....ah skip it"

"how -did- you 'do' it?"

"cuz -this, just ain't workin"

=because= this would have to be some thing

that -could- "self assemble" in a matter of days/weeks

from these 'unmotivated' constituent parts.

skip right to the point where this self assembly -could- happen

not asking -how- all of these constituents

take shape over the eons, so-called,

"-these- components, self assemble
-into- an organism that -replicates-"

it's a paradox

'it' needs 'itself' to assemble 'itself'

the "phantom mechanism"  

"the shadow knows"

or,  alternatively;

"who knows?"

"the shadow do"

more fine tuning...

i'm starting to see the relatedness between

"fine tuning" and "fine tuning"

it's always strange how these things fit together...

it's not "whimsy"

"the shadow built the man"

or, i suppose it's more like;

"the shadow -cast- the man"

this isn't happening;

""take one strand of RNA and toss it into
a container of warm water/nutrient bath

and days later, you find multiple copies of
the original RNA strand and a somewhat
depleted nutrient supply.""

so, that'd be a dead end...

in other words,

i'm -giving- you the "non-living" -components-

now, let's watch the "non-living" -components-

self assemble in aqueous solution, whereupon

a "living" assembly is now present

in aqueous solution.

there is no resort to an;

 "it takes a million years" argument

these non-living -components- should self assemble

to form a living organism in a matter of -days-

-if- they can self assemble -at all-

one thing for sure, considering the speculation
of a primal cell type that is a precursor for all
subsequent living organisms including all bacteria

there is no =specimen= of any such primal living organism.

no trace at all.

it must be one of those "invisible pink unicorns"

but, -positting- a primal precursor 'organism'

is a tacit admission that simple bacteria did not

spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.

that means, speculating on
the necessary existence of
some primal precursor,

is an unspoken admission that simple bacteria

did not spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.

so, what there is =evidence= for

is an organism that has no precursor

which did not arise from the random collisions

of non-living components.