Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580087 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-11 22:20 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-03-13 14:21 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 97 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 22:20 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-12 19:44 +1100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 03:48 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-13 10:07 +1100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 16:10 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-13 16:51 +1100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 22:05 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 06:48 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:29 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-12 11:37 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 15:06 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 10:13 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 19:34 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 11:55 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 20:13 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 12:48 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 21:06 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 14:52 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 00:13 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-12 20:59 -0500
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 20:35 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 12:34 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-12 12:07 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-12 22:55 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 22:12 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-12 23:46 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 14:55 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 14:58 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-12 23:12 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 00:14 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 20:41 -0800
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 12:35 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 06:29 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:33 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 06:49 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:01 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-13 16:58 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 09:26 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-13 21:17 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 20:51 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 20:57 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:09 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:44 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 16:15 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 00:06 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 21:15 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 02:55 -0400
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 00:31 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-14 10:45 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 10:48 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-14 08:57 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 09:39 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 17:05 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 14:43 -0400
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-14 22:22 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 14:26 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 00:51 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 22:13 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 10:36 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-13 11:17 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-14 22:55 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-15 01:08 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-15 11:12 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-16 09:03 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 17:30 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:58 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 11:46 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 19:18 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 13:03 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-16 13:54 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 14:21 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:37 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-16 23:16 +0100
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:27 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 16:37 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-16 18:34 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:58 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-17 06:27 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 11:12 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-17 11:44 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 17:22 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an asshole "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 21:26 -0700
Re: Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an asshole Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 22:30 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 21:21 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-18 21:54 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 22:21 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-18 23:10 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 23:42 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-19 13:10 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-19 13:50 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-20 12:08 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-21 22:47 -0700
Crank Richard Hertz loves eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:04 -0700
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 20:59 +0000
Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-13 14:21 +0100
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-13 11:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <622E3537.BDA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580183 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > >>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > > >>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > > >>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > > >>> > > >>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > > >>> > > >>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > > >> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > > >> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > > >> is not unusual. > > >> > > >> You were going to apologize? > > > > > > Ignorant, trying to save face! > > > > > > The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > > > (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > > No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > > > > You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > > people shouldn’t have to apologize? > > > > > > KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > > > > > > 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > > > > > > Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N in the formula of KE. > > I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > > apologize now? > > > > > > > > > But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > > > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon in the supermarket. But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place all the kooks get theirs. The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." is..."Since". You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" Now it sounds straight from Google. So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. You guys don't get the con. https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. (don't you hear the laughter?) Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. "Since" is the con word. If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." then it sounds like he looked it up on google. But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't Have You. "Since the average watermelon... It's a Con. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-14 22:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62302A61.166A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580192 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > >>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > > > >>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > > > >>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > > > >>> > > > >>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > > > >>> > > > >>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > > > >> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > > > >> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > > > >> is not unusual. > > > >> > > > >> You were going to apologize? > > > > > > > > Ignorant, trying to save face! > > > > > > > > The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > > > > (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > > > No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > > > > > > You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > > > people shouldn’t have to apologize? > > > > > > > > KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > > > > > > > > 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > > > > > > > > Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N in the formula of KE. > > > I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > > > apologize now? > > > > > > > > > > > > But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! > > Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. > > The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet > ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" > > So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much > the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. > > And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. > > Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon in the supermarket. > > But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place all the kooks get theirs. > > The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > is..."Since". > > You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" > > Now it sounds straight from Google. > > So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. > > Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. > > You guys don't get the con. > > https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 > > The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. > (don't you hear the laughter?) > > Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". > > The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. > > "Since" is the con word. > > If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > then it sounds like he looked it up on google. > > But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't Have You. "Since the average watermelon... > > It's a Con. > Of course, one can take it a step further... Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... In his textbook style he needed something that weighs 9 kg for his textbook problem. It never occurred to him to use a watermelon 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg in the world! So he did a google search... what weighs 9 kg ? First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? It weighs 9kg. https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... (they all have the same knowledge, right?) They all drink from the same well... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 01:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62304964.48B7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580303 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > >>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > > > > >>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > > > > >>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > > > > >> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > > > > >> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > > > > >> is not unusual. > > > > >> > > > > >> You were going to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > Ignorant, trying to save face! > > > > > > > > > > The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > > > > > (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > > > > No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > > > > > > > > You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > > > > people shouldn’t have to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > > > > > > > > > > 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > > > > > > > > > > Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N in the formula of KE. > > > > I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > > > > apologize now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! > > > > Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. > > > > The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet > > ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" > > > > So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much > > the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. > > > > And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. > > > > Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon in the supermarket. > > > > But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place all the kooks get theirs. > > > > The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > is..."Since". > > > > You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" > > > > Now it sounds straight from Google. > > > > So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. > > > > Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. > > > > You guys don't get the con. > > > > https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 > > > > The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. > > (don't you hear the laughter?) > > > > Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". > > > > The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. > > > > "Since" is the con word. > > > > If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > then it sounds like he looked it up on google. > > > > But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't Have You. "Since the average watermelon... > > > > It's a Con. > > > > Of course, one can take it a step further... > > Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... > > In his textbook style he needed something > that weighs 9 kg for his > textbook problem. > > It never occurred to him to use a watermelon > 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg > in the world! > > So he did a google search... > what weighs 9 kg ? > > First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! > > Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? > > It weighs 9kg. > as you can see listed number one is...watermellon. https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... > > (they all have the same knowledge, right?) > > They all drink from the same well... > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-15 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6230D6FB.4A20@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580310 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > > > > > >>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > > > > > >>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > > > > > >> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > > > > > >> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > > > > > >> is not unusual. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You were going to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorant, trying to save face! > > > > > > > > > > > > The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > > > > > > (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > > > > > No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > > > > > > > > > > You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > > > > > people shouldn’t have to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > > > KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > > > > > > > > > > > > Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N in the formula of KE. > > > > > I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > > > > > apologize now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! > > > > > > Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. > > > > > > The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet > > > ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" > > > > > > So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much > > > the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. > > > > > > And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. > > > > > > Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon in the supermarket. > > > > > > But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place all the kooks get theirs. > > > > > > The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > is..."Since". > > > > > > You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" > > > > > > Now it sounds straight from Google. > > > > > > So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. > > > > > > Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. > > > > > > You guys don't get the con. > > > > > > https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 > > > > > > The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. > > > (don't you hear the laughter?) > > > > > > Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". > > > > > > The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. > > > > > > "Since" is the con word. > > > > > > If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > then it sounds like he looked it up on google. > > > > > > But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't Have You. "Since the average watermelon... > > > > > > It's a Con. > > > > > > > Of course, one can take it a step further... > > > > Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... > > > > In his textbook style he needed something > > that weighs 9 kg for his > > textbook problem. > > > > It never occurred to him to use a watermelon > > 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg > > in the world! > > > > So he did a google search... > > what weighs 9 kg ? > > > > First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! > > > > Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? > > > > It weighs 9kg. > > > > as you can see listed number one is...watermellon. > > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > > > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > > > You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... > > > > (they all have the same knowledge, right?) > > > > They all drink from the same well... > > Of course one take it another step further.. Where did the odd bodkin get the 'numbers' from? Certainty not from his head. Textbooks...Solution Manual textbooks. The odd bodkin has to to be very careful he doesn't cut and paste the numbers off the internet... cause that will ruin the...Con. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 09:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62320A67.3DC8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #580310 |
But of course, by now if you check the textbooks problems and solutions manuals.. when it comes to objects 9 kg... they all use watermellons. either way the odd is a prisoner of ...textbooks indoctrination. the odd has been odd to the cross. The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > > > > > >>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > > > > > >>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > > > > > >> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > > > > > >> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > > > > > >> is not unusual. > > > > > >> > > > > > >> You were going to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorant, trying to save face! > > > > > > > > > > > > The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > > > > > > (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > > > > > No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > > > > > > > > > > You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > > > > > people shouldn’t have to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > > > KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > > > > > > > > > > > > Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N in the formula of KE. > > > > > I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > > > > > apologize now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! > > > > > > Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. > > > > > > The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet > > > ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" > > > > > > So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much > > > the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. > > > > > > And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. > > > > > > Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon in the supermarket. > > > > > > But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place all the kooks get theirs. > > > > > > The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > is..."Since". > > > > > > You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" > > > > > > Now it sounds straight from Google. > > > > > > So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. > > > > > > Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. > > > > > > You guys don't get the con. > > > > > > https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 > > > > > > The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. > > > (don't you hear the laughter?) > > > > > > Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". > > > > > > The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. > > > > > > "Since" is the con word. > > > > > > If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > then it sounds like he looked it up on google. > > > > > > But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't Have You. "Since the average watermelon... > > > > > > It's a Con. > > > > > > > Of course, one can take it a step further... > > > > Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... > > > > In his textbook style he needed something > > that weighs 9 kg for his > > textbook problem. > > > > It never occurred to him to use a watermelon > > 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg > > in the world! > > > > So he did a google search... > > what weighs 9 kg ? > > > > First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! > > > > Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? > > > > It weighs 9kg. > > > > as you can see listed number one is...watermellon. > > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > > > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > > > You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... > > > > (they all have the same knowledge, right?) > > > > They all drink from the same well... > > > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 10:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <099724f2-1984-4a41-910a-0e44bb4d05bcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580407 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > But of course, by now if you check the textbooks problems and solutions manuals.. > when it comes to objects 9 kg... > they all use watermellons. > > either way the odd is a prisoner of ...textbooks indoctrination. > > the odd > has been > odd > to the cross. > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > > > > > > >>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > > > > > > >>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > > > > > > >> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > > > > > > >> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > > > > > > >> is not unusual. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> You were going to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ignorant, trying to save face! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > > > > > > > (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > > > > > > No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > > > > > > > > > > > > You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > > > > > > people shouldn’t have to apologize? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N in the formula of KE. > > > > > > I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > > > > > > apologize now? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > > > Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! > > > > > > > > Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. > > > > > > > > The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > > > That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet > > > > ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" > > > > > > > > So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much > > > > the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. > > > > > > > > And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. > > > > > > > > Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon in the supermarket. > > > > > > > > But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place all the kooks get theirs. > > > > > > > > The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > > > is..."Since". > > > > > > > > You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" > > > > > > > > Now it sounds straight from Google. > > > > > > > > So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. > > > > > > > > Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. > > > > > > > > You guys don't get the con. > > > > > > > > https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 > > > > > > > > The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. > > > > (don't you hear the laughter?) > > > > > > > > Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". > > > > > > > > The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. > > > > > > > > "Since" is the con word. > > > > > > > > If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > > > > > > > > then it sounds like he looked it up on google. > > > > > > > > But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't Have You. "Since the average watermelon... > > > > > > > > It's a Con. > > > > > > > > > > Of course, one can take it a step further... > > > > > > Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... > > > > > > In his textbook style he needed something > > > that weighs 9 kg for his > > > textbook problem. > > > > > > It never occurred to him to use a watermelon > > > 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg > > > in the world! > > > > > > So he did a google search... > > > what weighs 9 kg ? > > > > > > First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! > > > > > > Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? > > > > > > It weighs 9kg. > > > > > > > as you can see listed number one is...watermellon. > > > > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > > > > > > https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > > > > > > You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... > > > > > > (they all have the same knowledge, right?) > > > > > > They all drink from the same well... > > > > > > -- > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. BODKIN'S FIRST POST EVER. NOBODY GAVE A FLYING FUCK. HE STARTED HERE BELIEVING THAT RELATIVITY IS METAPHYSICS. HE MORPHED INTO A RABID EINSTENIAN BY THE END OF 2013. *************************************************** bodk...@gmail.com, Jul 9, 2013, 6:15:26 PM I'm no expert, but I don't really see a problem with relativity. But I have to admit that it is unlike any other area of physics, because it seems to be closer to philosophy than to science. The reputation of relativity is that merely thinking about things afresh is where it came from, so I can understand why so many armchair philosophers think that they should be able to analyze it themselves. There is a reputation that relativity is proven by "thought experiments", which is just thinking, and that's nothing like superconductivity or plasmas or quantum mechanics, which are much more steeped in experimental results. I suppose there would be some who, like philosophers, politely disagree and are willing to argue a counter-premise. I don't know that real science is settled by arguments and logic, but that seems to be what's going on here. - Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables *************************************************** IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, HE TURNED INTO AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING, FROM COMPUTER SCIENCES, EVOLUTION, SR, THERMODYNAMICS, POLITICS, PHYSICS, CALCULUS (YOU HAVE TO READ HIS DEFINITION OF INTEGRALS), ECONOMY AND HOW SCIENCE HAS TO BE DONE (ONLY BY SCIENTISTS, WITHOUT ANY GUIDANCE FROM POLITICS OR ECONOMY). Bodkin, the nutcase in disguise (now more cloaked than ever).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0t6qq$13a9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580408 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: >> But of course, by now if you check the textbooks problems and solutions manuals.. >> when it comes to objects 9 kg... >> they all use watermellons. >> >> either way the odd is a prisoner of ...textbooks indoctrination. >> >> the odd >> has been >> odd >> to the cross. >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Richard Hertz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, >>>>>>>>>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: >>>>>>>>>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's a hell of a watermelon. >>>>>>>>> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 >>>>>>>>> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples >>>>>>>>> is not unusual. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You were going to apologize? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ignorant, trying to save face! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g >>>>>>>> (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). >>>>>>> No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old >>>>>>> people shouldn’t have to apologize? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N >>>>>>>> in the formula of KE. >>>>>>> I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to >>>>>>> apologize now? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>>> >>>>>> Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! >>>>> >>>>> Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' >>>>> how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. >>>>> >>>>> The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." >>>>> >>>>> That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet >>>>> ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" >>>>> >>>>> So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a >>>>> watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much >>>>> the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet >>>>> before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. >>>>> >>>>> And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does >>>>> a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. >>>>> >>>>> Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon >>>>> in the supermarket. >>>>> >>>>> But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place >>>>> all the kooks get theirs. >>>>> >>>>> The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average >>>>> watermelon is about 20 pounds..." >>>>> >>>>> is..."Since". >>>>> >>>>> You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average >>>>> watermelon is about 20 pounds" >>>>> >>>>> Now it sounds straight from Google. >>>>> >>>>> So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. >>>>> >>>>> Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. >>>>> >>>>> You guys don't get the con. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 >>>>> >>>>> The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged >>>>> on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. >>>>> (don't you hear the laughter?) >>>>> >>>>> Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". >>>>> >>>>> The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. >>>>> >>>>> "Since" is the con word. >>>>> >>>>> If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the >>>>> average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." >>>>> >>>>> then it sounds like he looked it up on google. >>>>> >>>>> But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't >>>>> Have You. "Since the average watermelon... >>>>> >>>>> It's a Con. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, one can take it a step further... >>>> >>>> Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... >>>> >>>> In his textbook style he needed something >>>> that weighs 9 kg for his >>>> textbook problem. >>>> >>>> It never occurred to him to use a watermelon >>>> 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg >>>> in the world! >>>> >>>> So he did a google search... >>>> what weighs 9 kg ? >>>> >>>> First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! >>>> >>>> Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? >>>> >>>> It weighs 9kg. >>>> >>> >>> as you can see listed number one is...watermellon. >>> >>> https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ >>> >>> >>>> https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ >>>> >>>> You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... >>>> >>>> (they all have the same knowledge, right?) >>>> >>>> They all drink from the same well... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge >>>> the unchallengeable. >>> >>> -- >>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, >>> and challenge >>> the unchallengeable. >> >> -- >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge >> the unchallengeable. > > BODKIN'S FIRST POST EVER. NOBODY GAVE A FLYING FUCK. > HE STARTED HERE BELIEVING THAT RELATIVITY IS METAPHYSICS. HE MORPHED INTO > A RABID EINSTENIAN BY THE END OF 2013. > > *************************************************** > bodk...@gmail.com, Jul 9, 2013, 6:15:26 PM > > I'm no expert, but I don't really see a problem with relativity. > > But I have to admit that it is unlike any other area of physics, because > it seems to be closer to philosophy than to science. > > The reputation of relativity is that merely thinking about things afresh > is where it came from, so I can understand why so > many armchair philosophers think that they should be able to analyze it > themselves. There is a reputation that relativity is > proven by "thought experiments", which is just thinking, and that's > nothing like superconductivity or plasmas or quantum > mechanics, which are much more steeped in experimental results. > > I suppose there would be some who, like philosophers, politely disagree > and are willing to argue a counter-premise. > I don't know that real science is settled by arguments and logic, but > that seems to be what's going on here. Which was quickly corrected in my mind. Not from this group, mind you. > > - Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables > *************************************************** > > IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, HE TURNED INTO AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING, FROM > COMPUTER SCIENCES, EVOLUTION, SR, > THERMODYNAMICS, POLITICS, PHYSICS, CALCULUS (YOU HAVE TO READ HIS > DEFINITION OF INTEGRALS), ECONOMY AND > HOW SCIENCE HAS TO BE DONE (ONLY BY SCIENTISTS, WITHOUT ANY GUIDANCE FROM > POLITICS OR ECONOMY). No claim of expertise. I know something about several subjects. Physics, including SR, quantum mechanics, thermo and statistical physics, optics, electrodynamics, mechanics, yes. Biology, what any freshman learns. Computer history, what hobbyist fans might know. Philosophy and mathematics, yes what I studied in school. You seem to have a problem with people who have broad interests and ingest a lot of material. Why? > > Bodkin, the nutcase in disguise (now more cloaked than ever). > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 10:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a021c20-e073-4750-abef-89deb5c50a36n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580410 |
On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 at 18:30:07 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 1:03:32 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > >> But of course, by now if you check the textbooks problems and solutions manuals.. > >> when it comes to objects 9 kg... > >> they all use watermellons. > >> > >> either way the odd is a prisoner of ...textbooks indoctrination. > >> > >> the odd > >> has been > >> odd > >> to the cross. > >> The Starmaker wrote: > >>> > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Richard Hertz wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 10:33:29 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 9:35:03 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, > >>>>>>>>>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: > >>>>>>>>>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Are you telling that your watermelon weight about 90 kilograms? Really? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> That's a hell of a watermelon. > >>>>>>>>> 9 kg, not 90 kg. The weight of the melon in SI units is a bit less than 90 > >>>>>>>>> newtons. An apple weighs about 1 newton. A watermelon that weighs 90 apples > >>>>>>>>> is not unusual. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You were going to apologize? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ignorant, trying to save face! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> The weight is still measured in KgF (Kilogram Force), which is W = m . g > >>>>>>>> (mass measured in Kg, g is g!). > >>>>>>> No, I was quoting a mass in kilograms. 9 kg is the mass of the watermelon. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You going to apologize now? Or is that beneath you because of your age? Old > >>>>>>> people shouldn’t have to apologize? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> KE (Joules) = 1/2 MASS (Kg) x VELOCITY² (m/s)² > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1 Joule = 1 Kg m²/s² , NOT 1 N m²/s² > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Asshole, you used 9 Kg (mass), which has weight of 90 KgF or 90 N > >>>>>>>> in the formula of KE. > >>>>>>> I used 9kg (I.e. the mass) in the calculation of the KE. You going to > >>>>>>> apologize now? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But still try to be right, because you are a cretin without shame! > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cretin! A 90 KgF watermelon (90 N)? You have no shame! > >>>>> > >>>>> Gentlemen, you have to keep in mind that the Odd Bodkin has 'no idea' > >>>>> how much the average weight of a watermelon IS. > >>>>> > >>>>> The Odd Bodkin writes: "Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > >>>>> > >>>>> That means, the Odd Bodkin, had to log on the internet > >>>>> ask Google "How much does a watermelon weigh?" > >>>>> > >>>>> So, the odd bodkin had 'no idea' how much the average weight of a > >>>>> watermelon is...he has to look it up on Google. Who knows How Much > >>>>> the odd bodkin has to 'look up' for information on the internet > >>>>> before he puts it all together and post it as if the words are all his very own. > >>>>> > >>>>> And the truth is..the odd bodkin STILL 'does not know' How much does > >>>>> a watermelon weigh unless he goes to the supermarket picks one up and weighs it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then, 'to know' the average weight...he has to weigh every watermelon > >>>>> in the supermarket. > >>>>> > >>>>> But, the fact is...he gets his 'know' from the internet, same place > >>>>> all the kooks get theirs. > >>>>> > >>>>> The operative word in Odd Bodkin statement: "Since the average > >>>>> watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > >>>>> > >>>>> is..."Since". > >>>>> > >>>>> You take out the word "Since" and you left with "the average > >>>>> watermelon is about 20 pounds" > >>>>> > >>>>> Now it sounds straight from Google. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, the Odd Bodkin added the word "Since" to own it as if it comes from himself. > >>>>> > >>>>> Google does not use the word "Since". dats human talk, not machine talk. > >>>>> > >>>>> You guys don't get the con. > >>>>> > >>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382 > >>>>> > >>>>> The odd bodkin has been conning you guys ever since he first logged > >>>>> on usenet..it's just for laughs. For entertainment purposes only. > >>>>> (don't you hear the laughter?) > >>>>> > >>>>> Don't you get it? The only word that belongs to the odd bodkin is..."Since". > >>>>> > >>>>> The "the average watermelon is about 20 pounds" is Google talk. > >>>>> > >>>>> "Since" is the con word. > >>>>> > >>>>> If he wrote the word "Because" instead of since..."Because the > >>>>> average watermelon is about 20 pounds..." > >>>>> > >>>>> then it sounds like he looked it up on google. > >>>>> > >>>>> But, "Since" sounds more like coming from a human...Since I Don't > >>>>> Have You. "Since the average watermelon... > >>>>> > >>>>> It's a Con. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Of course, one can take it a step further... > >>>> > >>>> Bodkin had this ...9 kg problem... > >>>> > >>>> In his textbook style he needed something > >>>> that weighs 9 kg for his > >>>> textbook problem. > >>>> > >>>> It never occurred to him to use a watermelon > >>>> 'since' he had no idea WHAT weighs 9 kg > >>>> in the world! > >>>> > >>>> So he did a google search... > >>>> what weighs 9 kg ? > >>>> > >>>> First common thing that pop up was...a watermelon! > >>>> > >>>> Didn't it occur to anyone here why he used a watermelon as an example? > >>>> > >>>> It weighs 9kg. > >>>> > >>> > >>> as you can see listed number one is...watermellon. > >>> > >>> https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > >>> > >>> > >>>> https://measuringstuff.com/list-of-household-items-that-weigh-20-pounds/ > >>>> > >>>> You see...the odd bodkin is no different then all those other kooks.... > >>>> > >>>> (they all have the same knowledge, right?) > >>>> > >>>> They all drink from the same well... > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > >>>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > >>>> the unchallengeable. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > >>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > >>> and challenge > >>> the unchallengeable. > >> > >> -- > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > BODKIN'S FIRST POST EVER. NOBODY GAVE A FLYING FUCK. > > HE STARTED HERE BELIEVING THAT RELATIVITY IS METAPHYSICS. HE MORPHED INTO > > A RABID EINSTENIAN BY THE END OF 2013. > > > > *************************************************** > > bodk...@gmail.com, Jul 9, 2013, 6:15:26 PM > > > > I'm no expert, but I don't really see a problem with relativity. > > > > But I have to admit that it is unlike any other area of physics, because > > it seems to be closer to philosophy than to science. > > > > The reputation of relativity is that merely thinking about things afresh > > is where it came from, so I can understand why so > > many armchair philosophers think that they should be able to analyze it > > themselves. There is a reputation that relativity is > > proven by "thought experiments", which is just thinking, and that's > > nothing like superconductivity or plasmas or quantum > > mechanics, which are much more steeped in experimental results. > > > > I suppose there would be some who, like philosophers, politely disagree > > and are willing to argue a counter-premise. > > I don't know that real science is settled by arguments and logic, but > > that seems to be what's going on here. > Which was quickly corrected in my mind. Not from this group, mind you. > > > > - Odd Bodkin, maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > *************************************************** > > > > IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS, HE TURNED INTO AN EXPERT ON EVERYTHING, FROM > > COMPUTER SCIENCES, EVOLUTION, SR, > > THERMODYNAMICS, POLITICS, PHYSICS, CALCULUS (YOU HAVE TO READ HIS > > DEFINITION OF INTEGRALS), ECONOMY AND > > HOW SCIENCE HAS TO BE DONE (ONLY BY SCIENTISTS, WITHOUT ANY GUIDANCE FROM > > POLITICS OR ECONOMY). > No claim of expertise. I know something about several subjects. Nonononononono! No claim of expertise! I just know...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 11:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <03aada39-b42b-43a6-b163-10e60ddb82d7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580410 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 2:30:07 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > No claim of expertise. I know something about several subjects. Physics, > including SR, quantum mechanics, thermo and statistical physics, optics, > electrodynamics, mechanics, yes. Biology, what any freshman learns. > Computer history, what hobbyist fans might know. Philosophy and > mathematics, yes what I studied in school. > > You seem to have a problem with people who have broad interests and ingest a lot of material. Why? I don't have any problem with this kind of people, because I'm one of them for the last 60 years or so. And covered much more subjects than those in your list, by the way. I have problems WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU, whom use the "borrowed knowledge" to PRETEND, SHOW OFF and pose as a fucking intellectual THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING ON ANYTHING, IKEA MAN! You have SERIOUS mental problems and you can't perceive them. Not a single drop of humility, not a single shadow of doubt. Posts after posts displaying you recently gained knowledge AS IF you was some sort of intellectually superior being, who assert things as fucking LAWS! I really pity you and those around you, whom have to suffer of your fucking HUBRIS and your MYTHOMANIA. You are restless in your pursuit of supremacy of thought over other members. But, and please get this, you only gain contempt from EVERYONE here. And this has being happening since your first post. But you seem to be immune to any criticism on your behavior and keep going. Not a single bit of doubt is present on your posts. So, ask to yourself: Who the fuck I believe I am? Why I behave in this disgusting way? Why do I have to post AS IF I am the embodiment of knowledge itself, plus the reincarnation of every single scientist or philosopher since Middle Ages? Until you recognize your defects, you will persist in bothering people like me with you behavior and postures. And I'm not saying that you are not smart. YOU ARE SMART, VERY SMART. But you are more an ASSHOLE than a SMART person, and acting as you do ERASE any gain that you could get from your smartness. Go to a shrink before it's too late.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 19:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0td6v$c33$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580414 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 2:30:07 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> No claim of expertise. I know something about several subjects. Physics, >> including SR, quantum mechanics, thermo and statistical physics, optics, >> electrodynamics, mechanics, yes. Biology, what any freshman learns. >> Computer history, what hobbyist fans might know. Philosophy and >> mathematics, yes what I studied in school. >> >> You seem to have a problem with people who have broad interests and >> ingest a lot of material. Why? > > I don't have any problem with this kind of people, because I'm one of > them for the last 60 years or so. Good. And in the first 10 years of your career, you learned from books and instructors. > And covered much more subjects than those in your list, by the way. > > I have problems WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU, whom use the "borrowed knowledge" > to PRETEND, SHOW OFF and pose > as a fucking intellectual THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING ON ANYTHING, IKEA MAN! You don’t seem to listen. Knowing a few things about a number of subject is not claiming to know everything about anything. What do YOU know about. You have as a hobby the history of science. Were you ever a professional historian of science? If not, how did you learn that history? Books? Ask yourself the same questions you ask me. Ask yourself why you regard yourself among the 300k elite in the whole world who are not (what you call) idiots. You slam me for all the things you are guilty of. No shame? Ever feel you’re the asshole in the room? No qualms about calling others assholes? > > You have SERIOUS mental problems and you can't perceive them. > > Not a single drop of humility, not a single shadow of doubt. > > Posts after posts displaying you recently gained knowledge AS IF you was > some sort of intellectually superior being, > who assert things as fucking LAWS! > > I really pity you and those around you, whom have to suffer of your > fucking HUBRIS and your MYTHOMANIA. > > You are restless in your pursuit of supremacy of thought over other > members. But, and please get this, you only gain contempt > from EVERYONE here. And this has being happening since your first post. > > But you seem to be immune to any criticism on your behavior and keep > going. Not a single bit of doubt is present on your posts. > > So, ask to yourself: Who the fuck I believe I am? Why I behave in this > disgusting way? Why do I have to post AS IF I am the > embodiment of knowledge itself, plus the reincarnation of every single > scientist or philosopher since Middle Ages? > > Until you recognize your defects, you will persist in bothering people > like me with you behavior and postures. > > And I'm not saying that you are not smart. YOU ARE SMART, VERY SMART. > > But you are more an ASSHOLE than a SMART person, and acting as you do > ERASE any gain that you could get from your smartness. > > Go to a shrink before it's too late. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6ca69622-516c-412f-882f-307ef1c50708n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580421 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:19:01 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 2:30:07 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >> No claim of expertise. I know something about several subjects. Physics, > >> including SR, quantum mechanics, thermo and statistical physics, optics, > >> electrodynamics, mechanics, yes. Biology, what any freshman learns. > >> Computer history, what hobbyist fans might know. Philosophy and > >> mathematics, yes what I studied in school. > >> > >> You seem to have a problem with people who have broad interests and > >> ingest a lot of material. Why? > > > > I don't have any problem with this kind of people, because I'm one of > > them for the last 60 years or so. > Good. And in the first 10 years of your career, you learned from books and > instructors. > > And covered much more subjects than those in your list, by the way. > > > > I have problems WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU, whom use the "borrowed knowledge" > > to PRETEND, SHOW OFF and pose > > as a fucking intellectual THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING ON ANYTHING, IKEA MAN! > You don’t seem to listen. Knowing a few things about a number of subject is > not claiming to know everything about anything. > > What do YOU know about. You have as a hobby the history of science. Were > you ever a professional historian of science? If not, how did you learn > that history? Books? > > Ask yourself the same questions you ask me. > > Ask yourself why you regard yourself among the 300k elite in the whole > world who are not (what you call) idiots. > > You slam me for all the things you are guilty of. No shame? > > Ever feel you’re the asshole in the room? No qualms about calling others > assholes? > > > > You have SERIOUS mental problems and you can't perceive them. > > > > Not a single drop of humility, not a single shadow of doubt. > > > > Posts after posts displaying you recently gained knowledge AS IF you was > > some sort of intellectually superior being, > > who assert things as fucking LAWS! > > > > I really pity you and those around you, whom have to suffer of your > > fucking HUBRIS and your MYTHOMANIA. > > > > You are restless in your pursuit of supremacy of thought over other > > members. But, and please get this, you only gain contempt > > from EVERYONE here. And this has being happening since your first post. > > > > But you seem to be immune to any criticism on your behavior and keep > > going. Not a single bit of doubt is present on your posts. > > > > So, ask to yourself: Who the fuck I believe I am? Why I behave in this > > disgusting way? Why do I have to post AS IF I am the > > embodiment of knowledge itself, plus the reincarnation of every single > > scientist or philosopher since Middle Ages? > > > > Until you recognize your defects, you will persist in bothering people > > like me with you behavior and postures. > > > > And I'm not saying that you are not smart. YOU ARE SMART, VERY SMART. > > > > But you are more an ASSHOLE than a SMART person, and acting as you do > > ERASE any gain that you could get from your smartness. > > > > Go to a shrink before it's too late. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables Bodkin, I can feel the noise of the blood flowing into your veins and arteries now that you have an issue to discuss about. Good for you. You forgot something that is fundamental: lab working at university and at my jobs. I talk from practical experience, not borrowed knowledge. And you don't have or had ANY, just words-paragraphs-ideologies. As for history of science, I don't rely ON ANY BOOK. All of them are biased, one way or another (for instance western vs. eastern). I am a natural researcher, so when I'm focused on any topic, I rely on my ability to collect huge amounts of data (original), filter them, pondering them and THEN (only then) I get to top-down vision, coming from a bottom-up construct. And, very important, I discard gossip of any kind. For instance, to understand the developments of physics from Kepler to Gauss, with Newton in between, I collected a lot of historic documents in many languages, because I WAS REALLY INTERESTED in knowing how valuable was the role of Newton. I didn't buy, nor I do now, the role of Newton as described by historians. I have enough with the Einsteinmania. So, my knowledge about how the knowledge grew in these 200 years, I covered every possible field: mathematics, "physics", "chemistry" and POLITICS. As you can calculate, it's harder than read a fucking book and just buy what is written. CORRELATION ON FUNDAMENTALS! I told you several times here, Bodkin: FUNDAMENTALS! But you didn't and don't get it. Finally, I don't have any desire to be in a pissing contest with you about who knows more. That would be STUPID. Because what a person knows on any specific field IS SUBJECTIVE to the assimilation capabilities of such person, and everyone assimilate FUNDAMENTALS differently. Proof: Take 100 teachers and tape one class on basic relativity. I bet you that you'll have almost 100 different approaches in the teaching of such simple issue. Now imagine them dictating a class on GR or QM! So, what you know is colored by your own internal biases and it's so for every other person. That one person can have a fantastic memory and another requires to google every bit is not important IF BOTH agree on fundamentals. In my case, I concede that you have covered in deep (here) more topics that I could (because I consider the effort senseless). So, a knowledge contest between us is not possible because your FUNDAMENTALS are ideologically biased and MINE are not. And the above is the final truth about any possible discussion between a relativist and any other person (like me). You're biased and I'm not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e578fe5e-528b-46fb-b922-70489f4ec1fcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580428 |
El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 4:19:01 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 2:30:07 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > >> No claim of expertise. I know something about several subjects. Physics, > > >> including SR, quantum mechanics, thermo and statistical physics, optics, > > >> electrodynamics, mechanics, yes. Biology, what any freshman learns. > > >> Computer history, what hobbyist fans might know. Philosophy and > > >> mathematics, yes what I studied in school. > > >> > > >> You seem to have a problem with people who have broad interests and > > >> ingest a lot of material. Why? > > > > > > I don't have any problem with this kind of people, because I'm one of > > > them for the last 60 years or so. > > Good. And in the first 10 years of your career, you learned from books and > > instructors. > > > And covered much more subjects than those in your list, by the way. > > > > > > I have problems WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU, whom use the "borrowed knowledge" > > > to PRETEND, SHOW OFF and pose > > > as a fucking intellectual THAT KNOWS EVERYTHING ON ANYTHING, IKEA MAN! > > You don’t seem to listen. Knowing a few things about a number of subject is > > not claiming to know everything about anything. > > > > What do YOU know about. You have as a hobby the history of science. Were > > you ever a professional historian of science? If not, how did you learn > > that history? Books? > > > > Ask yourself the same questions you ask me. > > > > Ask yourself why you regard yourself among the 300k elite in the whole > > world who are not (what you call) idiots. > > > > You slam me for all the things you are guilty of. No shame? > > > > Ever feel you’re the asshole in the room? No qualms about calling others > > assholes? > > > > > > You have SERIOUS mental problems and you can't perceive them. > > > > > > Not a single drop of humility, not a single shadow of doubt. > > > > > > Posts after posts displaying you recently gained knowledge AS IF you was > > > some sort of intellectually superior being, > > > who assert things as fucking LAWS! > > > > > > I really pity you and those around you, whom have to suffer of your > > > fucking HUBRIS and your MYTHOMANIA. > > > > > > You are restless in your pursuit of supremacy of thought over other > > > members. But, and please get this, you only gain contempt > > > from EVERYONE here. And this has being happening since your first post. > > > > > > But you seem to be immune to any criticism on your behavior and keep > > > going. Not a single bit of doubt is present on your posts. > > > > > > So, ask to yourself: Who the fuck I believe I am? Why I behave in this > > > disgusting way? Why do I have to post AS IF I am the > > > embodiment of knowledge itself, plus the reincarnation of every single > > > scientist or philosopher since Middle Ages? > > > > > > Until you recognize your defects, you will persist in bothering people > > > like me with you behavior and postures. > > > > > > And I'm not saying that you are not smart. YOU ARE SMART, VERY SMART. > > > > > > But you are more an ASSHOLE than a SMART person, and acting as you do > > > ERASE any gain that you could get from your smartness. > > > > > > Go to a shrink before it's too late. > > > > > > > > -- > > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > Bodkin, I can feel the noise of the blood flowing into your veins and arteries now that you have an issue to discuss about. Good for you. > > You forgot something that is fundamental: lab working at university and at my jobs. I talk from practical experience, not borrowed > knowledge. And you don't have or had ANY, just words-paragraphs-ideologies. > > As for history of science, I don't rely ON ANY BOOK. All of them are biased, one way or another (for instance western vs. eastern). > I am a natural researcher, so when I'm focused on any topic, I rely on my ability to collect huge amounts of data (original), filter them, > pondering them and THEN (only then) I get to top-down vision, coming from a bottom-up construct. > > And, very important, I discard gossip of any kind. > > For instance, to understand the developments of physics from Kepler to Gauss, with Newton in between, I collected a lot of historic > documents in many languages, because I WAS REALLY INTERESTED in knowing how valuable was the role of Newton. I didn't buy, > nor I do now, the role of Newton as described by historians. I have enough with the Einsteinmania. So, my knowledge about how the > knowledge grew in these 200 years, I covered every possible field: mathematics, "physics", "chemistry" and POLITICS. > > As you can calculate, it's harder than read a fucking book and just buy what is written. CORRELATION ON FUNDAMENTALS! > > I told you several times here, Bodkin: FUNDAMENTALS! But you didn't and don't get it. > > Finally, I don't have any desire to be in a pissing contest with you about who knows more. That would be STUPID. > > Because what a person knows on any specific field IS SUBJECTIVE to the assimilation capabilities of such person, and everyone > assimilate FUNDAMENTALS differently. Proof: Take 100 teachers and tape one class on basic relativity. I bet you that you'll have > almost 100 different approaches in the teaching of such simple issue. Now imagine them dictating a class on GR or QM! > > So, what you know is colored by your own internal biases and it's so for every other person. > > That one person can have a fantastic memory and another requires to google every bit is not important IF BOTH agree on fundamentals. > > In my case, I concede that you have covered in deep (here) more topics that I could (because I consider the effort senseless). So, a > knowledge contest between us is not possible because your FUNDAMENTALS are ideologically biased and MINE are not. > > And the above is the final truth about any possible discussion between a relativist and any other person (like me). > > You're biased and I'm not. A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because of your nonsensical ideas. A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with bein recognized as the top relativity denier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be531a35-b041-47c6-8b0f-02ef12e77e5fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580436 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:54:30 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: <snip> > A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because of your nonsensical ideas. > > A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with bein recognized as the top relativity denier. I declared my intentions long time ago. I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. You better write a book about DiffServ, QoS and shit like that, fake EE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0tla2$12r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580442 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:54:30 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: >> El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > > <snip> > >> A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like >> Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you >> totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your >> time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because >> of your nonsensical ideas. >> >> A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto >> and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with >> bein recognized as the top relativity denier. > > I declared my intentions long time ago. > > I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. And so you say things that apply to you. Trolling yourself. > > You better write a book about DiffServ, QoS and shit like that, fake EE. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t0tnjo$qur$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580442 |
Op 16-mrt.-2022 om 22:21 schreef Richard Hertz: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:54:30 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: >> El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > > <snip> > >> A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because of your nonsensical ideas. >> >> A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with bein recognized as the top relativity denier. > > I declared my intentions long time ago. > > I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. And the fact that they can make fun galore of you, they like even better. Sub-idiot. Dirk Vdm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 22:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0to7p$18le$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580444 |
Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote: > Op 16-mrt.-2022 om 22:21 schreef Richard Hertz: >> On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:54:30 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: >>> El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: >> >> <snip> >> >>> A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like >>> Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you >>> totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your >>> time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because >>> of your nonsensical ideas. >>> >>> A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto >>> and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with >>> bein recognized as the top relativity denier. >> >> I declared my intentions long time ago. >> >> I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. > > > And the fact that they can make fun galore of you, they like > even better. Sub-idiot. > > Dirk Vdm > Trolls are people who say stupid things on purpose, for the reaction. Richard says he likes saying stupid things. Ok that’s his kink. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36ef280d-781f-4a5d-a534-bb7671ccd7a9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580445 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 7:27:08 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: <snip> > Trolls are people who say stupid things on purpose, for the reaction. > Richard says he likes saying stupid things. Ok that’s his kink. There you are again: defining what a troll is, in your stupid absolutism, and then using your magistral definition to try a failed fallacy. Not even in that way you can do the things right. A total fail. Try to focus on the cartonn characters of what Paparios and Dork vin muuurtel have become when aging. Do you really want to become such a joke? Really? You still have time. Learn from others and change.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 18:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dddb700d-ae61-4f72-ad8c-28ecb3551ef6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580442 |
El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 18:21:15 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:54:30 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > > El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > <snip> > > A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because of your nonsensical ideas. > > > > A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with bein recognized as the top relativity denier. > I declared my intentions long time ago. > Your intentions are crystal clear, so you do not need to declared them. You see, trolls are easily identified and you are not the exception to the rule. > I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. First the concepts "relativists" or "pseudo-relativists" are complete nonsense. All Physicists do study for years subjects like Newtonian Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, among others (like QED, optics). Trolls like you know nothing about that. > > You better write a book about DiffServ, QoS and shit like that, fake EE. I have over 40 papers published so far. How about you? You are full of blah blah and most of it is pure BS. Stop making every day a total fool of your self
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-16 21:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a99c383-689f-4a5b-b7ca-bb846166be82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580454 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:34:50 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 18:21:15 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 5:54:30 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2022 a las 17:03:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > > <snip> > > > A relevant question is why are you posting here. If you do not like Einstein, as a person and/or as a physicist, and as a consequence you totally dispise SR and GR as BS, posting here is just a waste of your time, as nobody here will change his view about these subjects because of your nonsensical ideas. > > > > > > A better alternative for you would be to write a book (the same as Seto and Lake have done). At least you and your family would be happy with bein recognized as the top relativity denier. > > > I declared my intentions long time ago. > > > Your intentions are crystal clear, so you do not need to declared them. You see, trolls are easily identified and you are not the exception to the rule. > > I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. > First the concepts "relativists" or "pseudo-relativists" are complete nonsense. All Physicists do study for years subjects like Newtonian Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, among others (like QED, optics). Trolls like you know nothing about that. > > > > You better write a book about DiffServ, QoS and shit like that, fake EE. > I have over 40 papers published so far. How about you? > You are full of blah blah and most of it is pure BS. > Stop making every day a total fool of your self I read your crappy thesis for your master degree at Canada, and the study about DiffServ where you was involved. After making a living as a teacher at a chilean university for 40+ years, I can imagine the quality and originality of your 40+ papers. I'd knew MANY people like you from countries of LA, and I know exactly what they worth in this world. So, don't be so cocky, Rios.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-17 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36a9d39f-76d3-45a3-93d2-1d9d0f7cb0e6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580462 |
El jueves, 17 de marzo de 2022 a las 1:58:48 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 10:34:50 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: > > > I declared my intentions long time ago. > > > > > Your intentions are crystal clear, so you do not need to declared them. You see, trolls are easily identified and you are not the exception to the rule. > > > I post here to TROLL pseudo-relativists like you. And I still like it a lot. > > First the concepts "relativists" or "pseudo-relativists" are complete nonsense. All Physicists do study for years subjects like Newtonian Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, among others (like QED, optics). Trolls like you know nothing about that. > > > > > > You better write a book about DiffServ, QoS and shit like that, fake EE. > > I have over 40 papers published so far. How about you? > > You are full of blah blah and most of it is pure BS. > > Stop making every day a total fool of your self > I read your crappy thesis for your master degree at Canada, and the study about DiffServ where you was involved. > > After making a living as a teacher at a chilean university for 40+ years, I can imagine the quality and originality of your 40+ papers. > > I'd knew MANY people like you from countries of LA, and I know exactly what they worth in this world. So, don't be so cocky, Rios. More blah blah from a guy who says his name is "Richard Hertz, an electrical engineer from Argentina". However a simple google search gives 0 hits for that description. The Richard Hertz in google are: a character of the Suicide Squad movie, or the author of The Beat and the Buzz: Inside the L.A. Art World (a low cost kindle book), or a part time professor of political science at Las Positas College..... So troll, is Richard hertz your real name?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web