Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580849 > unrolled thread
| Started by | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-23 16:14 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-03-30 12:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 143 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 16:14 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 23:48 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 17:04 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 10:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 09:55 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 16:21 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 15:12 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 21:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 22:51 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 19:39 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-26 20:27 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 12:37 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 10:38 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 17:52 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 14:47 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 19:53 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 15:18 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 20:57 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-29 18:50 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 14:29 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-01 16:22 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 14:37 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 21:37 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 18:20 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 01:46 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 19:02 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-01 19:55 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 13:41 +0000
Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's the greatest imbecile "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-04-02 07:20 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-02 00:35 -0400
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 22:15 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-27 14:33 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-24 18:53 -0500
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 13:57 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 18:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 23:08 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 23:29 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-23 23:48 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 00:22 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 00:39 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 06:34 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 06:45 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:27 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:27 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 09:40 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 16:54 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 10:04 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:31 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 12:36 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:46 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 20:07 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 13:26 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 21:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 22:01 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 16:04 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 17:18 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 17:26 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 17:54 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 17:59 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 18:16 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 09:12 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 09:51 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 09:55 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 17:03 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 10:09 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 17:19 +0000
Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 10:39 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 10:46 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 17:52 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 10:59 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 12:01 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 12:00 -0700
Village imbecile Pat Dolan inserts foot in mouth "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 10:38 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 12:03 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 12:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-24 18:28 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 18:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 10:01 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 10:30 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 17:37 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 11:01 -0700
Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 11:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 12:04 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:34 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:43 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-24 22:16 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 13:26 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-25 11:16 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 14:58 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 00:52 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-25 21:58 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-27 23:56 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-28 13:09 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-29 11:48 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-29 19:25 +0000
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 11:07 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 12:02 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 12:46 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 13:23 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 21:31 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-30 22:10 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-31 10:40 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-04-01 13:34 -0700
Re: Cretin Pat Dolan perseveres Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:31 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-24 15:41 -0400
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 12:44 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 12:49 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 23:54 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 11:27 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-26 00:45 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-25 17:01 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 10:48 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 10:38 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-26 16:25 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 08:37 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-26 16:41 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 10:51 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-26 19:04 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 10:46 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 13:13 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-26 17:03 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 17:12 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-03-26 19:17 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-26 12:12 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-24 13:43 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 13:53 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:01 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 14:01 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 09:34 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-24 19:20 +0100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 11:51 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-24 18:11 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-24 18:16 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 18:25 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-24 18:46 -0700
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 19:44 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Takabe Matsumura <tamu@frdesn.jp> - 2022-03-24 20:00 +0000
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-25 11:21 +1100
Re: v' = v in the Transforms Lorentz carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> - 2022-03-30 12:34 -0700
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-30 14:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t21pgj$17hq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581338 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>>>> >>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>>>> >>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >>>> >>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >>>> >>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >>>> wide knowledge base. >>>> >>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>>>> >>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >>>> strawman is not particularly useful. >>> >>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I >>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no >>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. >>> >> >> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. >> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read >> physicists think. > > I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're > a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who have done a little reading, aren’t they? I’ve heard it also said, “Better to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? > >> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. >> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their >> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a >> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. > > <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> > > So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can > point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please > understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient > IMO. My answer to that question is yes. Yes. > > I'll remind you that John Nash was a multiple prize winning > schizophrenic. Mental illness does not preclude societal value of the > suffering individual. Such value is rare in the general population. I apologize for not being clear. Please reread the line where I said, “Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO.” Einstein and John Nash were both exhibitors of this boon, being creative while ALSO having a deep understanding and in fact a recognized excellence in the subject areas. Contrast that, please, with people who celebrate their own creativity while knowing precious little about a subject area. “Wouldn’t want to become indoctrinated and snuff out the creativity,” some of them say. Einstein and Nash are both excellent examples where being very conversant with their subject does not inhibit creativity. Nowhere did I mean to suggest that mental illness prevents competence in a subject area. What I am pointing out is that creativity ALONE is not a blessing. Creativity AND practiced skill, however, are a different thing. > > Please read about Nash at: > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash_Jr.> > > Demonstrated genius and mental illness are shown not to be mutually > exclusive. There are many articles on the internet discussing this > topic, so please don't be dismissive out of hand. OTOH I've known > several self-proclaimed geniuses who lacked productivity, let alone > productivity worthy of note. They've all been similar to the cranks who > post here. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 16:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jap8p2F8te8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #581365 |
On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>>>>> >>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >>>>> >>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >>>>> >>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >>>>> wide knowledge base. >>>>> >>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>>>>> >>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. >>>> >>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I >>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no >>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. >>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read >>> physicists think. >> >> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're >> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. > “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who > have done a little reading, aren’t they? I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to have become a bothersome jibe. Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does have enough context to provide some fodder. > I’ve heard it also said, “Better > to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and > indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes stepping over some boundaries I never cross. >>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. >>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their >>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a >>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. >> >> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> >> >> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can >> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please >> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient >> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. > > Yes. Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both questions. That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with mental aberrations. Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. You therefore have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable posters in this newsgroup.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 14:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a9596f6-9de2-4db0-bfa1-9ccc0135fdc3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581643 |
You guys sound frustrated. Dow don't lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 21:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t27rbi$48g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581643 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >>>>>> >>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >>>>>> wide knowledge base. >>>>>> >>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. >>>>> >>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I >>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no >>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. >>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read >>>> physicists think. >>> >>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're >>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. > > > >> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who >> have done a little reading, aren’t they? > > I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of > the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in > its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your > statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above > I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to > have become a bothersome jibe. Not with me, no. But it’s not exactly a secret code. And “parrot”, “sheep”, “religious believers” have been used often enough here. > > Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage > that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge > about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does > have enough context to provide some fodder. > >> I’ve heard it also said, “Better >> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and >> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? > > Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will > note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes > stepping over some boundaries I never cross. And what boundary does asking you what you think cross, exactly? > >>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. >>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their >>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a >>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. >>> >>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> >>> >>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can >>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please >>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient >>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. >> >> Yes. > > Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both > questions. What second question? “Is there anything you can point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy?” Yes. > That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with > mental aberrations. > > Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a > returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. Well, you have my curiosity up as to who I once was. And what do you gain from figuring out such things? > You therefore > have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable > posters in this newsgroup. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <359dc603-9732-444a-87e8-c84787bc2ae0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581647 |
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same > >>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model > >>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how > >>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with > >>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the > >>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in > >>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of > >>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- > >>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is > >>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and > >>>>>> wide knowledge base. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on > >>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful > >>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary > >>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a > >>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. > >>>>> > >>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I > >>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no > >>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. > >>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read > >>>> physicists think. > >>> > >>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're > >>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. > > > > > > > >> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who > >> have done a little reading, aren’t they? > > > > I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of > > the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in > > its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your > > statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above > > I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to > > have become a bothersome jibe. > Not with me, no. But it’s not exactly a secret code. > And “parrot”, “sheep”, “religious believers” have been used often enough > here. > > > > Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage > > that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge > > about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does > > have enough context to provide some fodder. > > > >> I’ve heard it also said, “Better > >> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and > >> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? > > > > Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will > > note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes > > stepping over some boundaries I never cross. > And what boundary does asking you what you think cross, exactly? > > > >>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. > >>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their > >>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a > >>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. > >>> > >>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> > >>> > >>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can > >>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please > >>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient > >>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. > >> > >> Yes. > > > > Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both > > questions. > What second question? “Is there anything you can point to in your career > (whatever that is) that is noteworthy?” Yes. > > That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with > > mental aberrations. > > > > Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a > > returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. > Well, you have my curiosity up as to who I once was. > And what do you gain from figuring out such things? > > You therefore > > have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable > > posters in this newsgroup. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Bodkin, do you actually compare your accomplishments to mine? List yours and I'll list mine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-02 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t289ts$h5p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581663 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>> On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>>>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>>>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >>>>>>>> wide knowledge base. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>>>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>>>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>>>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >>>>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I >>>>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no >>>>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. >>>>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read >>>>>> physicists think. >>>>> >>>>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're >>>>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. >>> >>> >>> >>>> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who >>>> have done a little reading, aren’t they? >>> >>> I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of >>> the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in >>> its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your >>> statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above >>> I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to >>> have become a bothersome jibe. >> Not with me, no. But it’s not exactly a secret code. >> And “parrot”, “sheep”, “religious believers” have been used often enough >> here. >>> >>> Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage >>> that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge >>> about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does >>> have enough context to provide some fodder. >>> >>>> I’ve heard it also said, “Better >>>> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and >>>> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? >>> >>> Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will >>> note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes >>> stepping over some boundaries I never cross. >> And what boundary does asking you what you think cross, exactly? >>> >>>>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. >>>>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their >>>>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a >>>>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. >>>>> >>>>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> >>>>> >>>>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can >>>>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please >>>>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient >>>>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both >>> questions. >> What second question? “Is there anything you can point to in your career >> (whatever that is) that is noteworthy?” Yes. >>> That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with >>> mental aberrations. >>> >>> Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a >>> returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. >> Well, you have my curiosity up as to who I once was. >> And what do you gain from figuring out such things? >>> You therefore >>> have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable >>> posters in this newsgroup. >>> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Bodkin, do you actually compare your accomplishments to mine? List yours > and I'll list mine. > Who said anything about comparisons? You did. All bravado and bluster. No meat on the bone though. All hat, no cattle. Bark over bite. Fancy glass holding Mountain Dew. Trump Dollar Store. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 19:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <56dd94c5-7469-45e3-a88a-e63750feebe7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581664 |
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 6:46:40 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>> On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> <snip> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same > >>>>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model > >>>>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how > >>>>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with > >>>>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the > >>>>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in > >>>>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of > >>>>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- > >>>>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is > >>>>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and > >>>>>>>> wide knowledge base. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on > >>>>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful > >>>>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary > >>>>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a > >>>>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I > >>>>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no > >>>>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. > >>>>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read > >>>>>> physicists think. > >>>>> > >>>>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're > >>>>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who > >>>> have done a little reading, aren’t they? > >>> > >>> I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of > >>> the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in > >>> its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your > >>> statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above > >>> I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to > >>> have become a bothersome jibe. > >> Not with me, no. But it’s not exactly a secret code. > >> And “parrot”, “sheep”, “religious believers” have been used often enough > >> here. > >>> > >>> Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage > >>> that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge > >>> about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does > >>> have enough context to provide some fodder. > >>> > >>>> I’ve heard it also said, “Better > >>>> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and > >>>> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? > >>> > >>> Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will > >>> note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes > >>> stepping over some boundaries I never cross. > >> And what boundary does asking you what you think cross, exactly? > >>> > >>>>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. > >>>>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their > >>>>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a > >>>>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. > >>>>> > >>>>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> > >>>>> > >>>>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can > >>>>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please > >>>>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient > >>>>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. > >>>> > >>>> Yes. > >>> > >>> Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both > >>> questions. > >> What second question? “Is there anything you can point to in your career > >> (whatever that is) that is noteworthy?” Yes. > >>> That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with > >>> mental aberrations. > >>> > >>> Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a > >>> returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. > >> Well, you have my curiosity up as to who I once was. > >> And what do you gain from figuring out such things? > >>> You therefore > >>> have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable > >>> posters in this newsgroup. > >>> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Bodkin, do you actually compare your accomplishments to mine? List yours > > and I'll list mine. > > > Who said anything about comparisons? > > You did. All bravado and bluster. > > No meat on the bone though. All hat, no cattle. Bark over bite. Fancy glass > holding Mountain Dew. Trump Dollar Store. > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Oh yeah! Here is a list of the great Dolando's accomplishments: 1) the discovery of the conflict between Einstein 1 and Kepler 3, no unique orbital period. 2) The derivation of the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula 3) The breaking of arithmetic, 1 = -1 4) The breaking of the Lorentz Transforms, v = c 5) the breaking of the spacetime interval, no unique elapsed time for lab clock wrt muon disintegration. My record clearly demonstrates that I am the greatest relativity authority of our time. Prove me wrong, Bodkin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-01 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4305a20c-7c62-4408-b438-33bb03ebb635n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581667 |
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:02:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 6:46:40 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > >>> On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> <snip> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same > > >>>>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model > > >>>>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how > > >>>>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with > > >>>>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the > > >>>>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in > > >>>>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of > > >>>>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- > > >>>>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is > > >>>>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and > > >>>>>>>> wide knowledge base. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on > > >>>>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful > > >>>>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary > > >>>>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a > > >>>>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I > > >>>>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no > > >>>>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. > > >>>>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read > > >>>>>> physicists think. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're > > >>>>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who > > >>>> have done a little reading, aren’t they? > > >>> > > >>> I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of > > >>> the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in > > >>> its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your > > >>> statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above > > >>> I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to > > >>> have become a bothersome jibe. > > >> Not with me, no. But it’s not exactly a secret code. > > >> And “parrot”, “sheep”, “religious believers” have been used often enough > > >> here. > > >>> > > >>> Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage > > >>> that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge > > >>> about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does > > >>> have enough context to provide some fodder. > > >>> > > >>>> I’ve heard it also said, “Better > > >>>> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and > > >>>> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? > > >>> > > >>> Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will > > >>> note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes > > >>> stepping over some boundaries I never cross. > > >> And what boundary does asking you what you think cross, exactly? > > >>> > > >>>>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. > > >>>>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their > > >>>>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a > > >>>>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can > > >>>>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please > > >>>>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient > > >>>>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. > > >>>> > > >>>> Yes. > > >>> > > >>> Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both > > >>> questions. > > >> What second question? “Is there anything you can point to in your career > > >> (whatever that is) that is noteworthy?” Yes. > > >>> That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with > > >>> mental aberrations. > > >>> > > >>> Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a > > >>> returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. > > >> Well, you have my curiosity up as to who I once was. > > >> And what do you gain from figuring out such things? > > >>> You therefore > > >>> have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable > > >>> posters in this newsgroup. > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > Bodkin, do you actually compare your accomplishments to mine? List yours > > > and I'll list mine. > > > > > Who said anything about comparisons? > > > > You did. All bravado and bluster. > > > > No meat on the bone though. All hat, no cattle. Bark over bite. Fancy glass > > holding Mountain Dew. Trump Dollar Store. > > -- > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > Oh yeah! Here is a list of the great Dolando's accomplishments: > > 1) the discovery of the conflict between Einstein 1 and Kepler 3, no unique orbital period. > > 2) The derivation of the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula > > 3) The breaking of arithmetic, 1 = -1 > > 4) The breaking of the Lorentz Transforms, v = c > > 5) the breaking of the spacetime interval, no unique elapsed time for lab clock wrt muon disintegration. > > My record clearly demonstrates that I am the greatest relativity authority of our time. Prove me wrong, Bodkin. The one task that remains to me, Bodkin, is to debunk the use of Olson events as the sham on logic that they are. This may be my greatest favor to this forum.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-02 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t29jph$352$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581669 |
patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> wrote: > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:02:43 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: >> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 6:46:40 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:37:58 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 3/30/2022 9:29 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 3:57 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 2:53 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/29/2022 12:52 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A "well established notion" is still only an "*opinion*" and is of the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> level of interest to me as the society column in the newspaper. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I think the matter here is, what do they mean when they say a model >>>>>>>>>>>>> is considered accepted? Is this a claim of certain alignment with how >>>>>>>>>>>>> nature ultimately works? No. Then, what do they mean? Even if tacked with >>>>>>>>>>>>> the qualifier “provisionally”, what does it mean when physicists say the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Standard Model is provisionally accepted? You seem to be uninterested in >>>>>>>>>>>>> hearing what that means to physicists, and consider anything short of >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven fact to be little more than gossip or speculation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you’re selling things a little short. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> And even here, so much opinion, and to most of it you apply semi- >>>>>>>>>>>> credence that read by slightly above average IQ or better is >>>>>>>>>>>> usually indistinguishable from fact. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and >>>>>>>>>>> wide knowledge base. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That concludes my *opinion* on >>>>>>>>>>>> the matters we've been discussing. "We cannot prove this thesis BUT..." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are ideas that cannot be proved BUT using them yields successful >>>>>>>>>>>> technologically produced items. That's truly a wonderful quandary >>>>>>>>>>>> that I thoroughly enjoy. Example, see GPS. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. And no model in physics is ever proven, so raising that as a >>>>>>>>>>> strawman is not particularly useful. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Actually an arguable concept, but you aren't the one to argue with and I >>>>>>>>>> have no interest in this potential discussion as you have expressed no >>>>>>>>>> ideas of your own, only repeated opinions of others. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, indeed, I try not to express ideas about things I know nothing about. >>>>>>>>> And where the subject is physics, I try to express what I’ve read >>>>>>>>> physicists think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've had my suspicions all along, so thanks for admitting that you're >>>>>>>> a clever drone with an ability to post to Usenet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> “Drone”, “parrot”, “sheep” are favorite words to ply against people who >>>>>>> have done a little reading, aren’t they? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a relative who has a fantastic memory but lacks understanding of >>>>>> the topics he expresses an interest in. As a result, I understand, in >>>>>> its full breadth and scope, the concept of "drone" far better than your >>>>>> statement above imputes. If I were to impute meaning to your reply above >>>>>> I would assume that the term "drone" has been used against you enough to >>>>>> have become a bothersome jibe. >>>>> Not with me, no. But it’s not exactly a secret code. >>>>> And “parrot”, “sheep”, “religious believers” have been used often enough >>>>> here. >>>>>> >>>>>> Without delving in depth into this I'll stick to the wonderful old adage >>>>>> that where there's smoke there's fire because I don't have any knowledge >>>>>> about the circumstances leading to your response, but your response does >>>>>> have enough context to provide some fodder. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I’ve heard it also said, “Better >>>>>>> to be an uneducated free thinker than to be one of the educated and >>>>>>> indoctrinated.” Is that your thinking? >>>>>> >>>>>> Decide for yourself based on the information you already have. I will >>>>>> note that this reply of yours is an argumentation tactic that includes >>>>>> stepping over some boundaries I never cross. >>>>> And what boundary does asking you what you think cross, exactly? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Creativity is really a cheap trait. Schizophrenics are highly creative. >>>>>>>>> QAnoners are extremely creative, and they feel very strongly about their >>>>>>>>> creations. Creativity is only a boon among those who ALSO understand a >>>>>>>>> subject deeply and thoroughly. IMHO. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <https://www.inc.com/annabel-acton/10-einstein-quotes-to-fire-up-your-creativity.html> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So you disagree with Einstein and many others. Is there anything you can >>>>>>>> point to in your career (whatever that is) that is noteworthy? Please >>>>>>>> understand I am not asking for details, a simple yes or no is sufficient >>>>>>>> IMO. My answer to that question is yes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you're so smart, I accept that as a single answer to both >>>>>> questions. >>>>> What second question? “Is there anything you can point to in your career >>>>> (whatever that is) that is noteworthy?” Yes. >>>>>> That also, BTW, is precisely the answer given by cranks with >>>>>> mental aberrations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well done Odd Bodkin, and I believe I may have figured who you are as a >>>>>> returned poster from yesteryear in the sci newsgroups. >>>>> Well, you have my curiosity up as to who I once was. >>>>> And what do you gain from figuring out such things? >>>>>> You therefore >>>>>> have earned a place in my killfile as one of several insufferable >>>>>> posters in this newsgroup. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> Bodkin, do you actually compare your accomplishments to mine? List yours >>>> and I'll list mine. >>>> >>> Who said anything about comparisons? >>> >>> You did. All bravado and bluster. >>> >>> No meat on the bone though. All hat, no cattle. Bark over bite. Fancy glass >>> holding Mountain Dew. Trump Dollar Store. >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> Oh yeah! Here is a list of the great Dolando's accomplishments: >> >> 1) the discovery of the conflict between Einstein 1 and Kepler 3, no >> unique orbital period. >> >> 2) The derivation of the Lorentz Contraction Velocity formula >> >> 3) The breaking of arithmetic, 1 = -1 >> >> 4) The breaking of the Lorentz Transforms, v = c >> >> 5) the breaking of the spacetime interval, no unique elapsed time for >> lab clock wrt muon disintegration. >> >> My record clearly demonstrates that I am the greatest relativity >> authority of our time. Prove me wrong, Bodkin. > The one task that remains to me, Bodkin, is to debunk the use of Olson > events as the sham on logic that they are. This may be my greatest favor to this forum. > Consider only that if your list of greatest accomplishments involves conversations you’ve had on Usenet, then it’s a mighty empty existence you’re so proud of. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-02 07:20 -0700 |
| Subject | Cretin Pat Dolan admits he's the greatest imbecile |
| Message-ID | <c3deb2a4-0640-40c2-ab0b-6a58fa57cf74n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581667 |
On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 7:02:43 PM UTC-7, imbecile pat dolan wrote: > My record clearly demonstrates that I am the greatest imbecile , alongside Richard Hertz and Ken Seto Absolutely
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-02 00:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t28jq4$154v$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #581663 |
On 4/1/2022 9:20 PM, patdolan wrote: > Bodkin, do you actually compare your accomplishments to mine? List yours and I'll list mine. Probably trivial from what I've seen here. Bodkin can show off his latest fancy table or something, Dolan: <crickets>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-29 22:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c20fa419-415a-4e09-9fc3-930ec56f725dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #581314 |
On Tuesday, 29 March 2022 at 21:53:51 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Being a physicist has nothing to do with above average IQ. > > It does have a lot to do with extensive attention to the subject matter and > wide knowledge base. Rather - with mindless obeying some insane gurus and religious mania.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-27 14:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d2b8ca35-21af-436b-8b61-04b9d233a7ben@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580952 |
On March 24, whodat wrote: > Still if there are no boundaries that means the universe is infinite in size, > and if there is any linearity involved, it cannot grow without affecting > the "infinite" nature of the universe because as you know "infinite" > means there is no possibility of a "larger infinite." I'm not sure about that. Can we diagonalize out of this universe? -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 18:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ja4eivF8po6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #580938 |
On 3/24/2022 4:44 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: >> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >> long time ago. > > How do you define “helpful”? > What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? The point of having a social discussion medium like Usenet is that messages are never dedicated to one person, but to anyone in a general audience who chooses to read what is posted here. If you are directing your answer with a desire to isolate who receives the posting you cannot use Usenet. Everything posted is part of a public discourse. Thus "helpful" cannot and is not directed to one individual, but to the general audience I mention above. In that potential mix is the full range of intellect and intelligence described by a bell curve distribution. You shouldn't have to be told these things, you, as a mathematician, should already know all this. So either you are not a mathematician as you claim, or you are being disingenuous in this discussion. Since I get to choose, I select the second possibility but in the long run it doesn't matter. AFAIC you owe the readers here an apology and if you run true to form one will not be forthcoming. It is clear to me that you will only have things your way, as a narcissist as I wrote yesterday. So there is no rationale persuading me to continue. >> Ultimately it all boils down to what sort of a history do you want to be >> a part of. You've answered any question anyone may have regarding your motivation(s) to participate on Usenet. Being well educated clearly does not translate into being a rational human being.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-25 13:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t1khnp$27f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #580946 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/24/2022 4:44 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > >>> The point where your postings were predominantly helpful has passed some >>> long time ago. >> >> How do you define “helpful”? >> What does being helpful to someone like Ken Seto look like to you? > > The point of having a social discussion medium like Usenet is that > messages are never dedicated to one person, but to anyone in a general > audience who chooses to read what is posted here. If you are directing > your answer with a desire to isolate who receives the posting you cannot > use Usenet. Everything posted is part of a public discourse. I look at it differently. I’m having a conversation with one person, reacting to what that person says. This does not prevent someone else from *also* reacting to what that person says, nor does it prevent someone else from reacting to what *I* say in response. In that sense, the discussion is open. It does not mean that my response should be an oration to the crowd, intended to convey a stance for all ears. > > Thus "helpful" cannot and is not directed to one individual, but to the > general audience I mention above. So, taking the example of Seto, who does not believe that a single unbalanced force can produce a stable orbit (because he believes that a single unbalanced force can only produce motion in the direction of the force), but where just about everyone else here understands enough basic physics to know how uniform circular motion works — what constitutes being “helpful” to the general audience? I’d like to understand how you’d approach this case yourself. > In that potential mix is the full > range of intellect and intelligence described by a bell curve > distribution. You shouldn't have to be told these things, you, as a > mathematician, should already know all this. Of course I do. And as you also well know, what drives things here more than intellect or intelligence is familiarity with the basics of the subject matter. Intelligence doesn’t help you much if you don’t know what the terms mean or how to do basic algebra. But MOST people here do have that background understanding and familiarity. So, for those that do NOT, is it your recommendation to lower the response level to mean minus two sigma? It is your recommendation that for broadest appeal, the discussion drops to lowest common denominator? > So either you are not a > mathematician as you claim, or you are being disingenuous in this > discussion. Since I get to choose, I select the second possibility but > in the long run it doesn't matter. AFAIC you owe the readers here an > apology and if you run true to form one will not be forthcoming. > > It is clear to me that you will only have things your way, > as a narcissist as I wrote yesterday. So there is no rationale > persuading me to continue. > >>> Ultimately it all boils down to what sort of a history do you want to be >>> a part of. > > You've answered any question anyone may have regarding your motivation(s) > to participate on Usenet. Being well educated clearly does not translate > into being a rational human being. > I’m not sure how you classify a “rational human being”. Does that translate to you into polite indulgence? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 18:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b41457d-b08e-453e-9de3-269d6f61cb0cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580849 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:14:47 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > Transforms from S to S' > x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the Transforms to S' > equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. You're stipulating (with c=1) that x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Multiplying through the equation for x' by v and adding it to the equation for t' gives vx'+t' = t(1-v^2)g = t/g, so we have t = (t'+vx)g. Likewise, multiplying through the equation for t' by v and adding it to the equation for x' gives vt'+x' = x(1-v^2)g = x/g, so we have x = (x'+vt')g.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13459998-0f4b-4323-a9d6-e586a1c597f6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580855 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-7, Townes Olson wrote: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 4:14:47 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > Transforms from S to S' > > x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] > > I dare any denizen of this forum to prove that the v used in the Transforms to S' > > equals/is identical to, the v used in the Transforms to S. > You're stipulating (with c=1) that x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Multiplying through the equation for x' by v and adding it to the equation for t' gives vx'+t' = t(1-v^2)g = t/g, so we have t = (t'+vx)g. Likewise, multiplying through the equation for t' by v and adding it to the equation for x' gives vt'+x' = x(1-v^2)g = x/g, so we have x = (x'+vt')g. First of all, Townes, you forgot to prime your x in your first derivation. Secondly, all you've done is demonstrated the fact that the transforms from S' to S can be derived from the transforms from S to S'. Lesson One, Townes: if you are going to prove anything about v then you will have to expand or divide out your g because it contains v. Townes, I'm going to help you out for your second try. Let's re-write the Transforms Lorentz for S to S' and S' to S using the variables v and v' accordingly, like this: Transforms from S to S' x' = ( x - vt )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] t' = ( t - vx/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ] Transforms to S' to S x = ( x' + v't' )/sqrt[ 1 - (v'/c)^2 ] t = ( t' + v'x'/c^2 )/sqrt[ 1 - (v'/c)^2 ] Now Townes, and this is very important, prove that v = v'. Do you understand? Let me know if I can help you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 23:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f501a22d-2bbe-4430-aece-c242e5fa76b5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580860 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 11:08:25 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > You're stipulating (with c=1) that x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Multiplying through the equation for x' by v and adding it to the equation for t' gives vx'+t' = t(1-v^2)g = t/g, so we have t = (t'+vx['])g. Likewise, multiplying through the equation for t' by v and adding it to the equation for x' gives vt'+x' = x(1-v^2)g = x/g, so we have x = (x'+vt')g. > > You forgot to prime your x.. Right, the result of inverting the transformation is t=(t'+vx')g and x=(x'+vt')g. > You've ... demonstrated the fact that the transforms from S' to S can > be derived from the transforms from S to S'. It isn't a "transform", it is a "transformation" (there is a difference), and each pair of equations constitutes a single transformation, not plural. And yes, the transformation from one system of coordinates to the other is algebraically invertible, and the parameter v characterizes the relationship between those two systems. Remember, with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2), the pair of equations x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g is algebraically equivalent to the pair of equations t=(t'+vx')g and x=(x'+vt')g. See above. > If you are going to prove anything about v then you will have to expand or > divide out your g because it contains v. No, the dependence of g on v is fully accounted for in the grade school algebra that shows how the parameter v appears in the transformation and it inverse. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-23 23:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e27b8305-f4ec-49b8-845e-9fe284d9044fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580861 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 11:29:49 PM UTC-7, Townes Olson wrote: > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 11:08:25 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > You're stipulating (with c=1) that x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Multiplying through the equation for x' by v and adding it to the equation for t' gives vx'+t' = t(1-v^2)g = t/g, so we have t = (t'+vx['])g. Likewise, multiplying through the equation for t' by v and adding it to the equation for x' gives vt'+x' = x(1-v^2)g = x/g, so we have x = (x'+vt')g. > > > > You forgot to prime your x.. > > Right, the result of inverting the transformation is t=(t'+vx')g and x=(x'+vt')g. > > > You've ... demonstrated the fact that the transforms from S' to S can > > be derived from the transforms from S to S'. > It isn't a "transform", it is a "transformation" (there is a difference), and each pair of equations constitutes a single transformation, not plural. And yes, the transformation from one system of coordinates to the other is algebraically invertible, and the parameter v characterizes the relationship between those two systems. Remember, with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2), the pair of equations x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g is algebraically equivalent to the pair of equations t=(t'+vx')g and x=(x'+vt')g. See above. Then it should be tautological and mere child's play for you to prime the v in the second pair of equations then prove that v' = v. Do you intend to do this? Or do you decline? > > > If you are going to prove anything about v then you will have to expand or > > divide out your g because it contains v. > No, the dependence of g on v is fully accounted for in the grade school algebra that shows how the parameter v appears in the transformation and it inverse. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-24 00:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <30dc3a39-7925-496d-8276-1c45f5d703a2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #580862 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 11:48:23 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote: > > > > You're stipulating (with c=1) that x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2). Multiplying through the equation for x' by v and adding it to the equation for t' gives vx'+t' = t(1-v^2)g = t/g, so we have t = (t'+vx')g. Likewise, multiplying through the equation for t' by v and adding it to the equation for x' gives vt'+x' = x(1-v^2)g = x/g, so we have x = (x'+vt')g. > > > > > You've ... demonstrated the fact that the transforms from S' to S can > > > be derived from the transforms from S to S'. > > > > Right, with g=1/sqrt(1-v^2), the pair of equations x'=(x-vt)g and t'=(t-vx)g is algebraically equivalent to the pair of equations t=(t'+vx')g and x=(x'+vt')g, as shown above. > > Then it should be tautological and mere child's play for you to prime the v in the second > pair of equations... You haven't defined what the phrase "prime the v" is supposed to mean. If you are defining the symbol v' to be identically equal to v, then indeed it is tautological that your symbol v' is identically equal to v. On the other hand, if you are defining the symbol v' to be your social security number, then it is tautologically your social security number. Tautologies of the kind you are engaged in have no cognitive significance. Remember, the dependence of g on v is fully accounted for in the grade school algebra that shows how the parameter v (defined as dx/dt of the spatial origin of S' in terms of S) appears in the transformation and its inverse. It follows per the above grade school algebra that dx'/dt' of the spatial origin of S in terms of S' is -v. See above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web