Off Topic » in reply to Which came first?

The whole thread (42 posts)

• A suggestion of mine for any theoretical physicist lurking. - Jacob - 1/9/2009 7:13:31 PM
  • It depends on the density of matter. - David F Mayer - 1/27/2009 1:47:25 AM
  • Is there no room for learning, differing opinions, even errors on the Space board? - Bowser - 1/14/2009 5:48:38 AM
    • Which came first? - Lindy - 1/16/2009 1:41:35 AM
      • The answer is actually simple. - SDAI-Tech1 - 1/16/2009 10:38:52 PM
      • re: Which came first? - nick hoffman - 1/16/2009 11:43:16 AM
        • Well said (New theory?) - Lindy - 1/16/2009 6:26:36 PM
    • In my opinion a turning point came in the last day or two. - Space Moderator Nick - 1/14/2009 9:44:38 AM
      • re:I agree with Bowser - Johannes - 1/15/2009 2:46:40 AM
        • Without disagreeing with Nick's call, there's a fine line there I'm having trouble identifying. - Bowser - 1/16/2009 1:20:00 AM
        • You can agree with whoever you like - Space Moderator Nick - 1/16/2009 12:40:11 AM
          • re: Nick, your thoughts are interesting indeed - Johannes - 1/19/2009 4:57:24 AM
  • Limits - SDAI-Tech1 - 1/11/2009 2:02:35 AM
    • re: movement of energy - Johannes - 1/11/2009 9:04:46 PM
      • Energy - SDAI-Tech1 - 1/14/2009 12:41:09 AM
        • re: Energy - REB - 1/15/2009 6:45:13 PM
          • re: I think that I understand your view point also, but - Johannes - 1/20/2009 2:58:49 AM
        • re: Thank you, I think I understand your view now. - Johannes - 1/15/2009 2:29:20 AM
  • I think maximum T is determined by the maximum number of angels that can dance on a hydrogen atom. (n/t) - Laurie Street - 1/10/2009 6:49:37 PM
    • Cute. - Jacob - 1/10/2009 7:33:37 PM
  • Total Codswallop - nick hoffman - 1/10/2009 4:13:48 AM
    • Learn about the Lorentz transformation - Nick Hoffman - 1/12/2009 2:08:52 AM
    • You are an idiot if you believe anything can move faster than C. - Jacob - 1/10/2009 5:17:02 PM
      • Don't be dense - Adam - 1/11/2009 1:08:17 AM
      • re: You are an idiot if you believe anything can move faster than C. - lance - 1/11/2009 12:04:51 AM
        • re: My opinion is that - Johannes - 1/11/2009 6:55:31 PM
          • re: My opinion is that - gbaikie - 1/12/2009 12:07:18 AM
            • re: Paradox ?? - Johannes - 1/12/2009 2:49:37 AM
              • re: Paradox ?? - gbaikie - 1/12/2009 6:07:11 AM
                • re: Paradox ?? - Johannes - 1/13/2009 3:40:45 AM
                  • re: Paradox ?? - gbaikie - 1/13/2009 5:49:45 AM
                    • re: Hmmm.... Les see, multiplying the - Johannes - 1/15/2009 1:44:54 AM
                      • re: Hmmm.... Les see, multiplying the - gbaikie - 1/15/2009 5:56:32 AM
                        • re: Hmmm.... Les see, multiplying the - gbaikie - 1/15/2009 7:11:56 AM
                          • re: re Yes it's 299,792,458 m/s. (n/t) - Johannes - 1/19/2009 5:13:53 AM
  • Upper limits - TB - 1/10/2009 2:20:53 AM
    • You still have to deal witH the limit known as" C". (n/t) - Jacob - 1/10/2009 5:18:15 PM
      • re: You still have to deal with the limit known as" C". - TB - 1/10/2009 6:34:13 PM
        • re: You still have to deal with the limit known as" C". - gbaikie - 1/10/2009 11:55:04 PM
        • Sorry--units should be degrees K. (n/t) - TB - 1/10/2009 6:35:04 PM
          • Either way, a limit is a limit is a limit. - Jacob - 1/10/2009 7:29:19 PM
  • That should be 9.0 x 10^20 ergs / gram.in the derivation (n/t) - Jacob - 1/9/2009 7:18:01 PM