Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #579421 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-03-04 13:49 +0000 |
| Last post | 2022-03-06 20:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 164 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 13:49 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-04 11:37 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 18:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 11:28 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:17 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-05 18:15 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 13:25 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-06 12:02 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-04 10:20 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-04 19:48 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:09 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 13:41 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-05 11:41 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 16:49 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz complains that he's been assfucked "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-05 17:04 -0800
Re: Crank Richard Hertz complains that he's been assfucked Ober Corn <nm@cvslm.ca> - 2022-03-06 22:33 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-06 16:11 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:30 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-03-04 11:09 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 21:17 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 16:20 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-04 11:16 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-04 14:01 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Grant Knox <iir@nnewa.ca> - 2022-03-04 22:22 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 08:19 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-06 12:31 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-06 15:21 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 13:38 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-07 12:15 -0600
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 18:32 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 10:47 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:25 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 08:00 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 16:15 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 20:17 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 06:00 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-09 14:13 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 07:02 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 16:16 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:39 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 21:58 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-11 11:51 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:59 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-13 23:08 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:12 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:10 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 06:54 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 15:05 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-13 20:22 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:13 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 06:42 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 15:05 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 06:36 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 15:48 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-18 07:14 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-18 21:30 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 22:25 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-20 11:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 12:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 12:43 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 06:42 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 14:47 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 15:37 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 08:01 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-03-15 16:18 +0100
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 09:16 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-15 12:56 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-18 07:22 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-18 13:54 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 18:01 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 04:52 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 12:10 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 05:26 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 05:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 13:11 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 06:52 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-20 12:01 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 09:21 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 09:52 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-20 12:53 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 12:03 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-20 14:40 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 20:10 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 14:23 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-20 22:29 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-20 18:18 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-21 17:51 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 00:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 11:12 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 16:22 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 11:54 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-22 17:19 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 21:14 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-22 21:33 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 22:16 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-03-24 10:59 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 18:28 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 00:41 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 06:53 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 09:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:43 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 15:04 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 11:53 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 22:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 15:27 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 00:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-22 05:41 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 14:51 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 14:55 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-23 07:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 15:23 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-24 05:40 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 13:55 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-24 09:03 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-25 06:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 15:11 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-25 18:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-25 18:46 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-26 05:59 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 13:13 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-26 06:39 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 14:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Russ Diaz <rdi@urvndm.mx> - 2022-03-26 13:45 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-26 01:55 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-25 15:20 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-26 05:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-25 07:34 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-22 00:48 -0400
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 09:56 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 19:35 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 11:43 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:26 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 15:04 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 08:47 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 15:57 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 12:19 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 14:54 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 15:12 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 02:06 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 04:13 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-21 17:16 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-22 18:41 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-03-22 19:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2022-03-23 06:47 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-03-23 15:32 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-03-22 22:17 -0500
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-21 22:07 +0000
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:47 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-21 07:48 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-20 05:18 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2022-03-20 05:44 -0700
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2022-03-07 10:22 -0800
Re: How you can tell if someone is really interested in physics Ober Corn <nm@cvslm.ca> - 2022-03-06 20:42 +0000
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 16:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fed157f8-6247-47c0-a4c5-770a2b6dfa13n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579461 |
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 1:17:22 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >> > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >> a chemist. > >> > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >> > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >> handy. > >> > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >> > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >> > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Bodkin, > > > > You claim that physics is best learnt from books. I'm interested to find > > out what other areas of knowledge you believe are also best learned from books. > > > Any field where college courseware is required for certification, for > starters. Law, medicine, engineering, architecture, pharmaceutical > chemistry, mathematics, economics policy, clinical psychology. There are > lots of occupations which do not require textbooks but require long periods > of direct apprenticeship under more experienced people: diesel mechanics, > crane operators, chefs, electricians, plumbers, cabinetmakers, luthiers, > orchestral musicians, professional basketball players. > > If you’re wondering about areas of knowledge that don’t require extensive > training, there’s fruit-picking, ditch-digging, coal mining, nightwatching, > candlemaking, assembly-line work, restaurant waitstaffing, retail store > sales, and politics. One of those is surely up your alley. > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables How about government work?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 11:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aaa6fdc6-d8c3-4230-a6fd-ba7f5bd006f4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 5:49:26 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > a chemist. > > On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > handy. > > And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Interest is irrelevant, incompetent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 14:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <62228C31.CF1@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > a chemist. > > On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > handy. > > And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The fact is... the fact is.. physics teachers don't know how to teach physics. So they blame the students for not learning the concepts. Try using pictures. No words no numbers.. just pictures. flash cards. -- 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 | Grant Knox <iir@nnewa.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-04 22:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <svu3eu$vac$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than > to waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. A comedian became president of the Ukraine Best of Soros_4IR-Clusterfucks https://www.bitchute.com/video/OqC7bspO3LVB/ Ukrainian President Has Got All the Moves https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=4SNXNXAA48AU Ukraine Crisis Actors https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=92S9NKKBYKXX Zelensky, Mid Drift High Heeled Penis Piano Player Gay https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=A53BRH8XRR5K
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c945ec0b-4127-42f9-bc08-348ab529baefn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579421 |
On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > > If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > a chemist. > > On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > interested enough in the subject to learn it. > > It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > handy. > > And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > > It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > > If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. The trouble is: 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the earth for billions of years. Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The followers will not be able to come up wth new concepts and that’s why they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the authority of physics and his knowledge on physics is based only on what he read in the book......no new idea outside of the books.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 12:31 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j8kd0fF8mpcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579614 |
On 3/6/2022 10:19 AM, Ken Seto wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >> >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >> a chemist. >> >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >> >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >> handy. >> >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >> >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >> >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win > > You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. The trouble is: > 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the earth for billions of years. Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The followers will not be able to come up wth new concepts and that’s why they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. Ken, science is a work in progress not a series of answers to questions about phenomena where many essential basics are not clearly defined or understood. The greatest failure of humans is to assume that because we have found some answers we actually understand most of nature when all we have is a working knowledge that has allowed technology to advance in limited ways. If you were to start right now to list the questions for which we do not have clear and definitive (under all circumstances) answers you would be unable to complete that list in your lifetime, regardless of your calendar age. To focus, as you have above, on an isolated example, results in complete fruitlessness because as is all too often the case here, the cart is before the horse. > 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the authority of physics and his knowledge on physics is based only on what he read in the book......no new idea outside of the books. Believe it or not, Odd Bodkin's attempts to be relevant are very similar to yours. Neither of you presents a valid challenge favoring faster or more efficient human progress. That might be something you'd like to consider when deciding on new directions for your efforts, or are you happy arguing uselessly and relentlessly in Usenet? Thus far you appear to have failed to describe a solvable problem. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0349g$1rpl$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579619 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/6/2022 10:19 AM, Ken Seto wrote: >> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >>> >>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >>> a chemist. >>> >>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >>> >>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >>> handy. >>> >>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >>> >>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >>> >>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win >> >> You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books >> say is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. The trouble is: >> 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For >> example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but >> we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the >> earth for billions of years. Gravity is a composite force as explained >> in the following link: >> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >> >> 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The >> followers will not be able to come up wth new concepts and that’s why >> they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. > > Ken, science is a work in progress not a series of answers to questions > about phenomena where many essential basics are not clearly defined or > understood. The greatest failure of humans is to assume that because we > have found some answers we actually understand most of nature when all > we have is a working knowledge that has allowed technology to advance in > limited ways. It’s a little further than that. > > If you were to start right now to list the questions for which we do not > have clear and definitive (under all circumstances) answers you would be > unable to complete that list in your lifetime, regardless of your > calendar age. Absolutely true. Physics is a living realm. However, to say we know next to nothing is also foolishness. > To focus, as you have above, on an isolated example, > results in complete fruitlessness because as is all too often the case > here, the cart is before the horse. > >> 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the >> authority of physics and his knowledge on physics is based only on what >> he read in the book......no new idea outside of the books. > > Believe it or not, Odd Bodkin's attempts to be relevant Relevant to what? I have no need to be relevant to physics. > are very similar > to yours. Neither of you presents a valid challenge favoring faster or > more efficient human progress. > > That might be something you'd like to consider when deciding on new > directions for your efforts, or are you happy arguing uselessly and > relentlessly in Usenet? Exactly, good question. Where could he spend his time more valuably than arguing here? I at least read. Does Ken? No. Do you? > > Thus far you appear to have failed to describe a solvable problem. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 15:21 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j8kmurFaj3aU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579630 |
On 3/6/2022 2:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: <snip> > I at least read. Does Ken? No. Do you? That's a strangely restrictive question that you may want to reconsider. For individuals with limited resources, reading is perhaps critical. I do read although I have a handicap in that realm, macular degeneration, that imposes limitations. You may consider yourself free to visit me and read to me as I am a willing listener. However, I grew up in a household in which my father held 2 PhD's and my (actually all his children) had most valuable learning during ages 0-21 at the dinner table (he was present every evening.) As a result, my resources for learning became much more based on discussions with knowledgeable people and I have been able to maintain a steady stream of them throughout my life. It is a mistake to measure others by the same yardstick you use to measure your own achievements because the world is usually much larger with greater possibilities than most individuals appreciate. I gave one (my) example above, but there are others. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t051tb$14k7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579642 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > On 3/6/2022 2:07 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > <snip> > >> I at least read. Does Ken? No. Do you? > That's a strangely restrictive question that you may > want to reconsider. For individuals with limited > resources, reading is perhaps critical. I do read > although I have a handicap in that realm, macular > degeneration, that imposes limitations. You may > consider yourself free to visit me and read to me > as I am a willing listener. You read and respond to what I write, so I believe you have ways to work around the handicap. > > However, I grew up in a household in which my father > held 2 PhD's and my (actually all his children) had > most valuable learning during ages 0-21 at the dinner > table (he was present every evening.) As a result, my > resources for learning became much more based on > discussions with knowledgeable people and I have > been able to maintain a steady stream of them > throughout my life. And who are the active physicists you continue to have conversations with? > > It is a mistake to measure others by the same yardstick > you use to measure your own achievements because the > world is usually much larger with greater possibilities > than most individuals appreciate. I gave one (my) example > above, but there are others. > I think you illustrate my point well. You read, despite handicaps, to learn a subject. And you gain knowledge by tutelage and discussion from experts. Note that many cranks here take neither approach, insisting that they’re better off not consulting with expertise at all as that would contaminate their minds. By the way, your father’s route of two earned PhDs is unusual and commonly discouraged, unless the two fields have dramatically different ways of conducting research, like classical literature and chemistry. I’m curious about that with him. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 12:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <j8n0eoFo0iiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579668 |
On 3/7/2022 7:38 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: [...] > You read, despite handicaps, to learn a subject. And you gain knowledge by > tutelage and discussion from experts. Note that many cranks here take > neither approach, insisting that they’re better off not consulting with > expertise at all as that would contaminate their minds. My point was that reading is not the only way to learn. Indeed the first science lesson I learned was at about age 2. I asked my mother why daddy was coming home so late. She said he was coming home at the same time as he always had, what was my concern. I said that daddy used to come home in the daylight, and now it is very dark when he gets home. Longer and shorter daylight, appropriate to a 2 year old (I know the timeframe because I was born in December near the winter solstice) was one of my very early dinnertime lessons. Clearly at age 2 a book was of no use to me and clearly I learned rather a lot for a 2 year old by other means. > By the way, your father’s route of two earned PhDs is unusual and commonly > discouraged, unless the two fields have dramatically different ways of > conducting research, like classical literature and chemistry. I’m curious > about that with him. I'll go so far as to acknowledge that his doctorates are in diverse fields, but more than that is ammunition for the unscrupulous. But this brings to the fore something that is bothersome. You didn't get the above from a physics (or any other) book, so it is clear from your question and commentary that you have a closer association with academia than you've been letting on. I don't expect a straight answer because of the selfsame unscrupulous people I mentioned above. Multiple doctorates aren't quite as rare as you seem to think. My physician at the MAYO clinic is an MD and a PhD, again in diverse although related fields. He is one of the few physicians over my lifetime that I can really engage in meaningful conversations. He is someone I look forward to visiting. Fortunately we are not on a 15 minute schedule as is the usual case. -- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05j3h$jbk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579702 |
whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote: > > > On 3/7/2022 7:38 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [...] > >> You read, despite handicaps, to learn a subject. And you gain > knowledge by >> tutelage and discussion from experts. Note that many cranks here take >> neither approach, insisting that they’re better off not consulting with >> expertise at all as that would contaminate their minds. > > My point was that reading is not the only way to learn. I agree. The other good way is tutelage at the guidance of an expert. At least, for the sciences. Or, for that matter, woodworking. > Indeed the first > science lesson I learned was at about age 2. I asked my mother why daddy > was coming home so late. She said he was coming home at the same time as > he always had, what was my concern. I said that daddy used to come home > in the daylight, and now it is very dark when he gets home. Longer and > shorter daylight, appropriate to a 2 year old (I know the timeframe > because I was born in December near the winter solstice) was one of my > very early dinnertime lessons. Clearly at age 2 a book was of no use to > me and clearly I learned rather a lot for a 2 year old by other means. > >> By the way, your father’s route of two earned PhDs is unusual and > commonly >> discouraged, unless the two fields have dramatically different ways of >> conducting research, like classical literature and chemistry. I’m curious >> about that with him. > > I'll go so far as to acknowledge that his doctorates are in diverse > fields, but more than that is ammunition for the unscrupulous. But this > brings to the fore something that is bothersome. You didn't get the > above from a physics (or any other) book, so it is clear from your > question and commentary that you have a closer association with academia > than you've been letting on. I think I’ve always been honest about my mathematics degree and early career as a mathematician. Did you think that I’m just a high school graduate because of my occupation? > I don't expect a straight answer because of > the selfsame unscrupulous people I mentioned above. > > Multiple doctorates aren't quite as rare as you seem to think. My > physician at the MAYO clinic is an MD and a PhD, again in diverse > although related fields. That’s not uncommon. Likewise, I have met a woman with an MD and a JD, who works in medical ethics. But that’s not two PhDs. A Doctor of Philosophy is designed to be a broad-based terminal degree. > He is one of the few physicians over my > lifetime that I can really engage in meaningful conversations. He is > someone I look forward to visiting. Fortunately we are not on a 15 > minute schedule as is the usual case. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41f5c9f3-e939-4af1-bba3-cc1416645c64n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579705 |
On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 19:32:21 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > I think I’ve always been honest about my mathematics degree and early > career as a mathematician. A pity they didn't teach you Pythagorean theorem or propositional calculus, poor halfbrain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2243d160-ff01-44e4-aa07-bfe6d8437197n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579707 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:47:04 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 19:32:21 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think I’ve always been honest about my mathematics degree and early career as a mathematician. > A pity they didn't teach you Pythagorean theorem or propositional calculus, poor halfbrain. And the most advanced equation you wrote here was about parabolic motion. Liar, deceiver, charlatan.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t07n2n$1quj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579746 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 3:47:04 PM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 19:32:21 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>> I think I’ve always been honest about my mathematics degree and early >>> career as a mathematician. > >> A pity they didn't teach you Pythagorean theorem or propositional >> calculus, poor halfbrain. > > And the most advanced equation you wrote here was about parabolic motion. > > Liar, deceiver, charlatan. > You have great gobs of time to craft a single message using math symbols in a medium hostile to them. I’d prefer to get a lot of content out quickly, because I don’t have as much time to kill as you do. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-06 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t0349f$1rpl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579614 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >> >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >> a chemist. >> >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >> >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >> handy. >> >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >> >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >> >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win > > You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say > is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. Reading does not indoctrinate. It’s a lousy excuse for being lazy. > The trouble is: > 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For > example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but > we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the > earth for billions of years. “We” know no such thing. You are operating from a position of ignorance to say that a single central force cannot produce a stable orbit. Being ignorant of simple things is not a reason to deny them. > Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The > followers will not be able to come up wth new concepts and that’s why > they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. Education is dangerous, you say? > > 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the authority of physics I claim no such authority. Authority and experience does rest with those educated in physics, though. You deny the value of expertise of physicists? > and his knowledge on physics is based only on what he read in the > book......no new idea outside of the books. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 08:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2b97452c-9566-4a1c-8093-b1aa1bf2ad70n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579629 |
On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >> > >> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >> a chemist. > >> > >> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >> > >> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >> handy. > >> > >> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >> > >> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >> > >> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win > > > > You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say > > is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. > Reading does not indoctrinate. It’s a lousy excuse for being lazy. > > The trouble is: > > 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For > > example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but > > we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the > > earth for billions of years. > “We” know no such thing. You are operating from a position of ignorance to > say that a single central force cannot produce a stable orbit. Being > ignorant of simple things is not a reason to deny them. > > Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The > > followers will not be able to com e up wth new concepts and that’s why > > they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. > Education is dangerous, you say? No I am saying that assuming that what the text book say is the true fundamental of the laws of physics is dangerous. For example: Assuming that gravity is a single attractive force is dangerous. Why? Because a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles. > > > > 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the authority of physics > I claim no such authority. Authority and experience does rest with those > educated in physics, though. You criticize everybody. This makes you the assumed authority. You refused to discuss any new idea with an opened mind and this also makes you an assumed authority. > > You deny the value of expertise of physicists? No I deny when they are wrong. For example gravity is not a single attractive force.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t05b3f$8pu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579685 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >>>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >>>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >>>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >>>> >>>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >>>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >>>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >>>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >>>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >>>> a chemist. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >>>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >>>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >>>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >>>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >>>> >>>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >>>> handy. >>>> >>>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >>>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >>>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >>>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >>>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >>>> >>>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >>>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >>>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >>>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >>>> >>>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win >>> >>> You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say >>> is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. >> Reading does not indoctrinate. It’s a lousy excuse for being lazy. >>> The trouble is: >>> 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For >>> example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but >>> we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the >>> earth for billions of years. >> “We” know no such thing. You are operating from a position of ignorance to >> say that a single central force cannot produce a stable orbit. Being >> ignorant of simple things is not a reason to deny them. >>> Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>> >>> 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The >>> followers will not be able to com e up wth new concepts and that’s why >>> they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. >> Education is dangerous, you say? > > No I am saying that assuming that what the text book say is the true > fundamental of the laws of physics is dangerous. You don’t have to assume anything. But you do have to READ the textbook to understand what it says. Saying that a book is wrong WITHOUT READING IT is stupid. > For example: Assuming that gravity is a single attractive force is > dangerous. Why? Because a single attractive force cannot make an object > go around in circles. No, that’s an incorrect claim. You have simply not learned how simple it is that a single central force can produce uniform circular motion. >>> >>> 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the authority of physics >> I claim no such authority. Authority and experience does rest with those >> educated in physics, though. > > You criticize everybody. No, I criticize YOU. I criticize others who make strong statements about physics without having ever read any physics. That’s just being stupid. > This makes you the assumed authority. You refused to discuss any new idea > with an opened mind and this also makes you an assumed authority. There is no point in seriously discussing the new physics idea of someone who doesn’t even know what the words mean. Don’t you think so? >> >> You deny the value of expertise of physicists? > > No I deny when they are wrong. For example gravity is not a single attractive force. Ken, for you to deny things you have NEVER STUDIED is stupid. > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-07 20:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35b32f2d-2089-4302-ab77-f968b64078cbn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579686 |
On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >>>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >>>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >>>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >>>> > >>>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >>>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >>>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >>>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >>>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >>>> a chemist. > >>>> > >>>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >>>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >>>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >>>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >>>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >>>> > >>>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >>>> handy. > >>>> > >>>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >>>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >>>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >>>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >>>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >>>> > >>>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >>>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >>>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >>>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >>>> > >>>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win > >>> > >>> You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say > >>> is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. > >> Reading does not indoctrinate. It’s a lousy excuse for being lazy. > >>> The trouble is: > >>> 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For > >>> example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but > >>> we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the > >>> earth for billions of years. > >> “We” know no such thing. You are operating from a position of ignorance to > >> say that a single central force cannot produce a stable orbit. Being > >> ignorant of simple things is not a reason to deny them. > >>> Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>> > >>> 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The > >>> followers will not be able to com e up wth new concepts and that’s why > >>> they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other forces of nature. > >> Education is dangerous, you say? > > > > No I am saying that assuming that what the text book say is the true > > fundamental of the laws of physics is dangerous. > You don’t have to assume anything. But you do have to READ the textbook to > understand what it says. Saying that a book is wrong WITHOUT READING IT is > stupid. > is that Hey stupid moron Bodkin, I said that any book that insisted that gravity is a single attractive force is wrong and the reason is that a single attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles > > > For example: Assuming that gravity is a single attractive force is > > dangerous. Why? Because a single attractive force cannot make an object > > go around in circles. > No, that’s an incorrect claim. You have simply not learned how simple it is > that a single central force can produce uniform circular motion. > >>> > >>> 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the authority of physics > >> I claim no such authority. Authority and experience does rest with those > >> educated in physics, though. > > > > You criticize everybody. > No, I criticize YOU. I criticize others who make strong statements about > physics without having ever read any physics. That’s just being stupid. > > This makes you the assumed authority. You refused to discuss any new idea > > with an opened mind and this also makes you an assumed authority. > There is no point in seriously discussing the new physics idea of someone > who doesn’t even know what the words mean. Don’t you think so? > >> > >> You deny the value of expertise of physicists? > > > > No I deny when they are wrong. For example gravity is not a single attractive force. > Ken, for you to deny things you have NEVER STUDIED is stupid. > > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-08 13:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t07n2k$1quj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #579743 |
Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if >>>>>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find >>>>>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to >>>>>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what >>>>>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by >>>>>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the >>>>>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did >>>>>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being >>>>>> a chemist. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and >>>>>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in >>>>>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not >>>>>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not >>>>>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in >>>>>> handy. >>>>>> >>>>>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be >>>>>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on >>>>>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you >>>>>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will >>>>>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. >>>>>> >>>>>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not >>>>>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much >>>>>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does >>>>>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win >>>>> >>>>> You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say >>>>> is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. >>>> Reading does not indoctrinate. It’s a lousy excuse for being lazy. >>>>> The trouble is: >>>>> 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For >>>>> example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but >>>>> we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the >>>>> earth for billions of years. >>>> “We” know no such thing. You are operating from a position of ignorance to >>>> say that a single central force cannot produce a stable orbit. Being >>>> ignorant of simple things is not a reason to deny them. >>>>> Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf >>>>> >>>>> 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The >>>>> followers will not be able to com e up wth new concepts and that’s why >>>>> they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other >>>>> forces of nature. >>>> Education is dangerous, you say? >>> >>> No I am saying that assuming that what the text book say is the true >>> fundamental of the laws of physics is dangerous. >> You don’t have to assume anything. But you do have to READ the textbook to >> understand what it says. Saying that a book is wrong WITHOUT READING IT is >> stupid. >> is that > Hey stupid moron Bodkin, I said that any book that insisted that gravity > is a single attractive force is wrong and the reason is that a single > attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles That’s what you said alright. Wouldn’t want to ever read a book that would prove you wrong, would you? What would be the point? You don’t ever want to discover that you’re wrong about anything. Makes you gag. >> >>> For example: Assuming that gravity is a single attractive force is >>> dangerous. Why? Because a single attractive force cannot make an object >>> go around in circles. >> No, that’s an incorrect claim. You have simply not learned how simple it is >> that a single central force can produce uniform circular motion. >>>>> >>>>> 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the >>>>> authority of physics >>>> I claim no such authority. Authority and experience does rest with those >>>> educated in physics, though. >>> >>> You criticize everybody. >> No, I criticize YOU. I criticize others who make strong statements about >> physics without having ever read any physics. That’s just being stupid. >>> This makes you the assumed authority. You refused to discuss any new idea >>> with an opened mind and this also makes you an assumed authority. >> There is no point in seriously discussing the new physics idea of someone >> who doesn’t even know what the words mean. Don’t you think so? >>>> >>>> You deny the value of expertise of physicists? >>> >>> No I deny when they are wrong. For example gravity is not a single attractive force. >> Ken, for you to deny things you have NEVER STUDIED is stupid. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-03-09 06:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aca50f95-0c80-4086-be96-46688cc5957fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579768 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 8:52:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 11:15:47 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 3:07:15 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 8:49:26 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> There’s a very simple test to see if you’re interested in physics, or if > >>>>>> you only want to casually waste your time with it. And hey, if you find > >>>>>> yourself with a lot of time and can think of nothing better to do than to > >>>>>> waste it, far be it from me to keep you from that squandering. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you’re truly interested in physics (or any subject), you will do what > >>>>>> you did early in your life, from 15-30. You will learn the subject by > >>>>>> studying books and materials generated specifically to teach you the > >>>>>> subject. Engineers did this on the way to being an engineer, doctors did > >>>>>> this on the way to becoming a doctor, chemists did this on the way to being > >>>>>> a chemist. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On the other hand, if you do not wish to spend time studying books and > >>>>>> instructional materials in physics, then you aren’t really interested in > >>>>>> the subject. It doesn’t matter what excuses you might offer for not > >>>>>> studying those materials — there have been many offered. You’re just not > >>>>>> interested enough in the subject to learn it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It’s as simple as that, and a little brutal self-awareness would come in > >>>>>> handy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And if you do not want to have that conversation with yourself, just be > >>>>>> aware (if nothing else) that everyone else will make that assessment on > >>>>>> their own about you. This means that if you bristle and splutter that you > >>>>>> really are interested in physics, despite this observation, everyone will > >>>>>> still be aware that you are not telling the truth. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It does not matter how many years you spent with physics, it does not > >>>>>> matter how many books you own or have opened, it does not matter how much > >>>>>> effort you have put into writing your own musings about physics, it does > >>>>>> not matter how many physicists you have as friends. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you don’t learn physics, you’re just not interested in physics. e folk link:win > >>>>> > >>>>> You want us to be indoctrinated what the books say and what the books say > >>>>> is the truth of fundamental laws of physics. > >>>> Reading does not indoctrinate. It’s a lousy excuse for being lazy. > >>>>> The trouble is: > >>>>> 1. The books teachings are based on the wrong concepts of nature? For > >>>>> example: the books teach that gravity is a single attractive force but > >>>>> we know that a single attractive force cannot make the moon orbit the > >>>>> earth for billions of years. > >>>> “We” know no such thing. You are operating from a position of ignorance to > >>>> say that a single central force cannot produce a stable orbit. Being > >>>> ignorant of simple things is not a reason to deny them. > >>>>> Gravity is a composite force as explained in the following link: > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. It is dangerous to be boxed in the wrong concept of nature. The > >>>>> followers will not be able to com e up wth new concepts and that’s why > >>>>> they failed to come up with new ideas to unite gravity with the other > >>>>> forces of nature. > >>>> Education is dangerous, you say? > >>> > >>> No I am saying that assuming that what the text book say is the true > >>> fundamental of the laws of physics is dangerous. > >> You don’t have to assume anything. But you do have to READ the textbook to > >> understand what it says. Saying that a book is wrong WITHOUT READING IT is > >> stupid. > >> is that > > Hey stupid moron Bodkin, I said that any book that insisted that gravity > > is a single attractive force is wrong and the reason is that a single > > attractive force cannot make an object go around in circles > That’s what you said alright. > > Wouldn’t want to ever read a book that woulvinced that a single force d prove you wrong, would you? Hey stupid, No book can prove that a single attractive force is able to make an object go around in circle. You need two opposing forces to make an object go around in circles.....gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force. If you are convinced that a single force can make an object go around in circles give us an example.....don’t just bullshit us and tell us to read some books. > What would be the point? You don’t ever want to discover that you’re wrong > about anything. Makes you gag. > >> > >>> For example: Assuming that gravity is a single attractive force is > >>> dangerous. Why? Because a single attractive force cannot make an object > >>> go around in circles. > >> No, that’s an incorrect claim. You have simply not learned how simple it is > >> that a single central force can produce uniform circular motion. > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. It is dangerous is to listen to a woodworker who claims to be the > >>>>> authority of physics > >>>> I claim no such authority. Authority and experience does rest with those > >>>> educated in physics, though. > >>> > >>> You criticize everybody. > >> No, I criticize YOU. I criticize others who make strong statements about > >> physics without having ever read any physics. That’s just being stupid. > >>> This makes you the assumed authority. You refused to discuss any new idea > >>> with an opened mind and this also makes you an assumed authority. > >> There is no point in seriously discussing the new physics idea of someone > >> who doesn’t even know what the words mean. Don’t you think so? > >>>> > >>>> You deny the value of expertise of physicists? > >>> > >>> No I deny when they are wrong. For example gravity is not a single attractive force. > >> Ken, for you to deny things you have NEVER STUDIED is stupid. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web