Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #580087 > unrolled thread

Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-11 22:20 -0800
    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-12 19:44 +1100
      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 03:48 -0800
        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-13 10:07 +1100
          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 16:10 -0800
            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2022-03-13 16:51 +1100
              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 22:05 -0800
                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:29 +0000
                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 06:48 -0700
            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:29 +0000
    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-12 11:37 +0100
    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 15:06 +0000
      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 10:13 -0800
        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 19:34 +0000
          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 11:55 -0800
            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 20:13 +0000
              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 12:48 -0800
                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 21:06 +0000
                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 14:52 -0800
                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 00:13 +0000
                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-12 20:59 -0500
                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 20:35 -0800
                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 12:34 +0000
        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-12 12:07 -0800
        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-12 22:55 +0100
          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 22:12 +0000
            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-12 23:46 +0100
              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 14:55 -0800
                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 14:58 -0800
                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Vaugn Rhea <var@bfrlsr.ni> - 2022-03-12 23:12 +0000
                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 00:14 +0000
                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-12 20:41 -0800
                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 12:35 +0000
                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 06:29 -0700
                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 13:33 +0000
                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 06:49 -0700
                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:01 +0000
                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-13 16:58 +0100
                                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 09:26 -0700
                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-03-13 21:17 +0100
                                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 20:51 +0000
                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 20:57 +0000
                                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 14:09 -0700
                                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-13 22:44 +0100
                                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 16:15 -0700
                                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 00:06 +0000
                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-13 21:15 -0700
                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 02:55 -0400
                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 00:31 -0700
                                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-14 10:45 +0100
                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 10:48 +0000
                                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-14 08:57 -0700
                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 09:39 -0700
                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 17:05 +0000
                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-03-14 14:43 -0400
                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-14 22:22 +0100
                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 14:26 -0700
                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 00:51 +0000
                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-14 22:13 -0700
                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-15 10:36 +0000
                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-13 11:17 -0700
                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-14 22:55 -0700
                                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-15 01:08 -0700
                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-15 11:12 -0700
                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-16 09:03 -0700
                                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:16 -0700
                                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 17:30 +0000
                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 10:58 -0700
                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 11:46 -0700
                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 19:18 +0000
                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 13:03 -0700
                                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-16 13:54 -0700
                                                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 14:21 -0700
                                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:37 +0000
                                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-03-16 23:16 +0100
                                                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:27 +0000
                                                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 16:37 -0700
                                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-16 18:34 -0700
                                                    Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 21:58 -0700
                                                      Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-17 06:27 -0700
                                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 11:12 -0700
                                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-03-17 11:44 -0700
                                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 17:22 -0700
                                                              Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an asshole "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 21:26 -0700
                                                                Re: Crank Richard Hertz admits he's an asshole Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-03-17 22:30 -0700
                                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 21:21 +0000
                                                        Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-18 21:54 -0700
                                                          Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 22:21 -0700
                                                            Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-18 23:10 -0700
                                                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-03-18 23:42 -0700
                                                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-19 13:10 -0700
                                                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-19 13:50 -0700
                                                                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-20 12:08 -0700
                                                                  Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-03-21 22:47 -0700
                                                  Crank Richard Hertz loves eating shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 22:04 -0700
                                              Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-03-16 20:59 +0000
                Re: Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-03-13 14:21 +0100

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#580087 — Bodkin physics: Watermelons in free fall and solar radiation

I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of
The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math:

Can you spot the error(s)?

*************************************************

Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM

Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is 
due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the 
earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead. 
(At different latitutes, it's less.) 

So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about 
0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a 
city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb 
from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly 
no more than 300 W. 

This is of course presuming that none of the 
photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't 
true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit. 
It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the 
ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly. 

Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, 
we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: 
400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 
so 
v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into 
kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else. 

But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec = 
13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a 
meter stick mounted at ground level.
*************************************************
??

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#580096

On 12-Mar-22 5:20 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of
> The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math:
> 
> Can you spot the error(s)?
> 
> *************************************************
> 
> Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM
> 
> Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is
> due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the
> earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead.
> (At different latitutes, it's less.)
> 
> So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about
> 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a
> city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb
> from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly
> no more than 300 W.
> 
> This is of course presuming that none of the
> photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't
> true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit.
> It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the
> ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly.
> 
> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms,
> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate:
> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2
> so
> v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into
> kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else.
> 
> But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec =
> 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a
> meter stick mounted at ground level.
> *************************************************
> ??

You've truly surpassed yourself.

And I don't mean that in a good way.

What has the kinetic energy due to the absorption of light got to do 
with the speed the melon reaches under the influence of gravity?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580100

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 5:44:45 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12-Mar-22 5:20 pm, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of 
> > The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math: 
> > 
> > Can you spot the error(s)? 
> > 
> > ************************************************* 
> > 
> > Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM 
> > 
> > Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is 
> > due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the 
> > earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead. 
> > (At different latitutes, it's less.) 
> > 
> > So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about 
> > 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a 
> > city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb 
> > from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly 
> > no more than 300 W. 
> > 
> > This is of course presuming that none of the 
> > photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't 
> > true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit. 
> > It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the 
> > ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly. 
> > 
> > Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, 
> > we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: 
> > 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 
> > so 
> > v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into 
> > kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else. 
> > 
> > But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec = 
> > 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a 
> > meter stick mounted at ground level. 
> > ************************************************* 
> > ??
> You've truly surpassed yourself. 
> 
> And I don't mean that in a good way. 
> 
> What has the kinetic energy due to the absorption of light got to do 
> with the speed the melon reaches under the influence of gravity? 
> 
> Sylvia.

Exactly. You have to ask to Bodkin, not to me. There you have the timestamp of his post by then.

And he's an advocate of relativity. 

Did you find the error(s)?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580143

On 12-Mar-22 10:48 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 5:44:45 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12-Mar-22 5:20 pm, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of
>>> The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math:
>>>
>>> Can you spot the error(s)?
>>>
>>> *************************************************
>>>
>>> Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM
>>>
>>> Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is
>>> due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the
>>> earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead.
>>> (At different latitutes, it's less.)
>>>
>>> So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about
>>> 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a
>>> city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb
>>> from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly
>>> no more than 300 W.
>>>
>>> This is of course presuming that none of the
>>> photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't
>>> true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit.
>>> It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the
>>> ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly.
>>>
>>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms,
>>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate:
>>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2
>>> so
>>> v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into
>>> kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else.
>>>
>>> But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec =
>>> 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a
>>> meter stick mounted at ground level.
>>> *************************************************
>>> ??
>> You've truly surpassed yourself.
>>
>> And I don't mean that in a good way.
>>
>> What has the kinetic energy due to the absorption of light got to do
>> with the speed the melon reaches under the influence of gravity?
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Exactly. You have to ask to Bodkin, not to me. There you have the timestamp of his post by then.
> 
> And he's an advocate of relativity.
> 
> Did you find the error(s)?

Your post fits into the "not even wrong" category. Heads up - that's not 
a good thing.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580146

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 8:07:49 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip>

> Your post fits into the "not even wrong" category. Heads up - that's not a good thing. 
> 
> Sylvia.


The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead.

WRONG VALUE. A COMMON MISTAKE IN MANY SITES.

So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about
0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a
city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb
from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly
no more than 300 W.

WRONG CONCEPT. ENERGY (J) IS NOT POWER (W = J/S).

<snip>

Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms,
we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate:
400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2
so
v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into
kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else.

WRONG CONCEPT. WEIGHT (9 kgF) IS TAKEN AS MASS (M = WEIGHT/g).


But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec =
13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a
meter stick mounted at ground level.

WRONG CONCEPT. IS TRYING TO LEAD THIS TO THINKING THAT ABSORBED ENERGY CAUSES MASS INCREMENT.


See, Sylvia? 4 huge mistakes in an exercise that has no support in reality. 

Plus, beating the poor guy all the way, as if he KNEW BETTER.

Keep supporting him, anyway. I don't care more than what I wrote.

I stick with my position: He's a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously, and always has been (plus a charlatan pretender).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580162

On 13-Mar-22 11:10 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 8:07:49 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Your post fits into the "not even wrong" category. Heads up - that's not a good thing.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> 
> The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead.
> 
> WRONG VALUE. A COMMON MISTAKE IN MANY SITES.
> 
> So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about
> 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a
> city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb
> from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly
> no more than 300 W.
> 
> WRONG CONCEPT. ENERGY (J) IS NOT POWER (W = J/S).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms,
> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate:
> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2
> so
> v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into
> kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else.
> 
> WRONG CONCEPT. WEIGHT (9 kgF) IS TAKEN AS MASS (M = WEIGHT/g).
> 
> 
> But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec =
> 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a
> meter stick mounted at ground level.
> 
> WRONG CONCEPT. IS TRYING TO LEAD THIS TO THINKING THAT ABSORBED ENERGY CAUSES MASS INCREMENT.
> 
> 
> See, Sylvia? 4 huge mistakes in an exercise that has no support in reality.
> 
> Plus, beating the poor guy all the way, as if he KNEW BETTER.
> 
> Keep supporting him, anyway. I don't care more than what I wrote.
> 
> I stick with my position: He's a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously, and always has been (plus a charlatan pretender).

Until we know what your actual conclusion is, and you never reached one 
that made any sense, it is impossible to say where your mistakes are.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580163

On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 2:51:33 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:

<snip> 

> > I stick with my position: He's a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously, and always has been (plus a charlatan pretender).

> Until we know what your actual conclusion is, and you never reached one 
> that made any sense, it is impossible to say where your mistakes are. 
> 
> Sylvia.

I''m sorry that you didn't understood my conclusions, which are clearly wrote above your line here.

I affirm that Bodkin is "a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously, and always has been (plus a charlatan pretender)", and I have
to add that he's bullying old people without a degree that want to participate at this forum. He find it delightful, because he
can ABUSE of the borrowed knowledge that he COPY, MODIFY & PASTE previous posting it as if it was of his own conception,
after EATING IT from the 100++ books that he charish so much.

In few words: Bodkin is a deceiver, an impostor and also a mathematical inept person who lives his dream of "intellectual superiority"
abusing of interactions with persons that have lesser formal education AND is less capable to defend themselves from abuse.


Is that clear for you now?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580178

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 2:51:33 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
>>> I stick with my position: He's a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously,
>>> and always has been (plus a charlatan pretender).
> 
>> Until we know what your actual conclusion is, and you never reached one 
>> that made any sense, it is impossible to say where your mistakes are. 
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I''m sorry that you didn't understood my conclusions, which are clearly
> wrote above your line here.
> 
> I affirm that Bodkin is "a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously, and
> always has been (plus a charlatan pretender)", and I have
> to add that he's bullying old people without a degree that want to
> participate at this forum. 

And you believe that old people who not only do not have a degree but also
do not have FIRST-YEAR education on the subject, should be free to
participate in this forum with nothing but encouragement and positive
engagement, just because they’re old? WHY?

> He find it delightful, because he
> can ABUSE of the borrowed knowledge that he COPY, MODIFY & PASTE previous
> posting it as if it was of his own conception
> after EATING IT from the 100++ books that he charish so much.

I do enjoy books, yes. It’s called educating myself.
Now, if you’re the sort that says that book studying is useless, fine,
that’s you. In that case, maybe you’re advocating that only people with
direct career experience should voice anything on a subject. In that case,
the most of the old man posters should heed your advice and not say
anything about fundamental physics, because they didn’t do any in their
careers. 

> 
> In few words: Bodkin is a deceiver, an impostor and also a mathematical
> inept person who lives his dream of "intellectual superiority"
> abusing of interactions with persons that have lesser formal education
> AND is less capable to defend themselves from abuse.

And should this not encourage them to educate themselves before they open
their yaps on a subject they know nothing about? Or are you saying that old
people should be indulged yapping about things they know nothing about,
just because of advanced age?

> 
> 
> Is that clear for you now?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580182

As it is said everywhere in the western world (I don't know shit about eastern one), NOBODY resist an archive.

So, as you still PRETEND to defend yourself from your past stupidities (as I would NOT due, nor any other honest person),
you try to scramble with the game of words.

Then, have some more gems. This time, NO DATE FOR YOU!



> Well, much of what took place in science took place because it was hoped that some military 
> advantage would be gained, so a government would pay scientists to develop weapons of war. 

This is another fine example, Robert, where your beliefs run counter to 
facts. Perhaps you could tell me what military advantage was intended to 
be found in the following: 
- Discovery of X-rays 
- Quantum mechanics 
- Semiconductors 
- the kinetic theory of thermodynamics 
- Astronomy 
- Cosmology 
- the Standard Model of particle interactions 



> But every once in a while, some scientist would see something no one else saw, such as Kepler's 
> formula for the orbits of the planets. 
MY NOTE: Kepler worked DECADES on his laws. I wouldn't call it "seeing" as an instant of powerful insight!



You just asked me a bit ago why I have such a low opinion of humanity. 
And here you are commenting on three professions and calling every 
member of each of those professions evil. 



> No, you have it backwards. Truth in science determines equations. 

I'm pretty sure that's not right either, Robert. Truth in science is 
determined by measurements. Measurements then tell you which kinds of 
equations represent reality and which ones don't. The ones that don't 
represent reality are algebraically fine, but they just don't represent 
reality because they disagree with measurements. 
I think you're very confused about how science works.

MY NOTE: Are you writing about the infinite solutions of GR, the math of SR or the classic method about how science work?


>> Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster 
>> than Mercury that's been observed? 

> Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second. 

Well, let's see. 
The New Horizons probe. 
Electrons in an electron microscope, or for that matter in a cathode ray 
tube TV. 
Cosmic rays. 
Protons in a particle accelerator. 
Ionized atoms in the RHIC collider. 

Lots of things, Robert. Where have you been?

MY NOTE:  He specifically asked something THAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED going faster than 30 miles per second.
First class sophist, deceiver, cretin.


I won’t be making a twitter account, thanks. And I think on length 
contraction, you and Mr Trump may have a lot in common in that you don’t 
let evidence influence what you believe. You just choose what you believe 
and stick with that, no matter what.

MY NOTE:  You was discussing that length contraction has been observed and measured!

Enough for now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580177

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 8:07:49 PM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Your post fits into the "not even wrong" category. Heads up - that's not a good thing. 
>> 
>> Sylvia.
> 
> 
> The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the earth is 1370 W/m^2
> at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead.
> 
> WRONG VALUE. A COMMON MISTAKE IN MANY SITES.
> 
> So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about
> 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a
> city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb
> from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly
> no more than 300 W.
> 
> WRONG CONCEPT. ENERGY (J) IS NOT POWER (W = J/S).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms,
> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate:
> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2
> so
> v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into
> kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else.
> 
> WRONG CONCEPT. WEIGHT (9 kgF) IS TAKEN AS MASS (M = WEIGHT/g).
> 
> 
> But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec =
> 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a
> meter stick mounted at ground level.
> 
> WRONG CONCEPT. IS TRYING TO LEAD THIS TO THINKING THAT ABSORBED ENERGY
> CAUSES MASS INCREMENT.
> 
> 
> See, Sylvia? 4 huge mistakes in an exercise that has no support in reality. 
> 
> Plus, beating the poor guy all the way, as if he KNEW BETTER.
> 
> Keep supporting him, anyway. I don't care more than what I wrote.
> 
> I stick with my position: He's a cretin and an imbecile simultaneously,
> and always has been (plus a charlatan pretender).
> 

Let’s note a couple things.

First of all, you stripped off the first and last parts of my post that
explained the context of those calculations.

Secondly, I was not replying to Fischer in this post, I was replying to Y,
and so your complaint that I was browbeating Fischer was simply factually
misrepresented.

Third, the conflation of energy and power was done deliberately on my part,
because Y was talking about a qualitative term “photonic induction” and
understood energy but does not understand the distinction between power and
energy. You’ll note my calculations were correct and used the right units. 

Fourth, your last complaint that I was trying to show a mass increase from
mass absorption is completely off the mark and has nothing whatsoever to do
with what I was calculating, which leads me to think you yourself did not
read what I was saying carefully, or that you are confused about the
concepts yourself. The fact that you thought I was talking about kgF when I
said no such thing only underscores this.

In your focused diatribe against me, all you are doing is illustrating your
lack of interest in retaining context and actually understanding what you
are reading. 

You’ll have my respect when you earn it, not just because you’re older. Old
fools are still fools and should not be treated with deference and respect,
in my opinion. You may, of course, have a different view of your
entitlements.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580097

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of
> The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math:
> 
> Can you spot the error(s)?

[Context missing, and needed]

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580105

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of
> The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math:
> 
> Can you spot the error(s)?
> 
> *************************************************
> 
> Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM
> 
> Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is 
> due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the 
> earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead. 
> (At different latitutes, it's less.) 
> 
> So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about 
> 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a 
> city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb 
> from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly 
> no more than 300 W. 
> 
> This is of course presuming that none of the 
> photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't 
> true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit. 
> It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the 
> ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly. 
> 
> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, 
> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: 
> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 
> so 
> v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into 
> kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else. 
> 
> But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec = 
> 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a 
> meter stick mounted at ground level.
> *************************************************
> ??
> 

Why does a crazy person mine a 7-year-old post, remove all the context, and
apparently have no point?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580114

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 12:06:58 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of 
> > The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math: 
> > 
> > Can you spot the error(s)? 
> > 
> > ************************************************* 
> > 
> > Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM 
> > 
> > Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is 
> > due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the 
> > earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead. 
> > (At different latitutes, it's less.) 
> > 
> > So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about 
> > 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a 
> > city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb 
> > from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly 
> > no more than 300 W. 
> > 
> > This is of course presuming that none of the 
> > photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't 
> > true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit. 
> > It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the 
> > ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly. 
> > 
> > Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, 
> > we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: 
> > 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 
> > so 
> > v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into 
> > kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else. 
> > 
> > But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec = 
> > 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a 
> > meter stick mounted at ground level. 
> > ************************************************* 
> > ?? 
> >
> Why does a crazy person mine a 7-year-old post, remove all the context, and 
> apparently have no point? 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Because I didn't like that you abused of an 86 years old person with endless discussions for several years (Fischer),
seemingly enjoying in a sadistic way your superiority.

And this behavior with this elder is not the only one. 

It seems that you are fond of this kind of behavior with very old people, but feel bad when they die (one year later, in this case).

I find this attitude despicable.

Do you get my point now, Bodkin?

Besides the stupid post, where you use weight instead of mass to calculate KE, plus the wrong value of energy, plus confusing
watts with joules plus the stupid post by itself.

Stick with woodworking.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580121

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 12:06:58 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>> I can't let this gem pass. It's a sample of the power of thought of 
>>> The Supreme Thinker and one of the rare posts where he uses his math: 
>>> 
>>> Can you spot the error(s)? 
>>> 
>>> ************************************************* 
>>> 
>>> Dec 2, 2014, 5:17:02 PM 
>>> 
>>> Almost all of the photonic flow down onto the surface of the earth is 
>>> due to the sun. The amount of energy delivered to the surface of the 
>>> earth is 1370 W/m^2 at the latitude where the sun is directly overhead. 
>>> (At different latitutes, it's less.) 
>>> 
>>> So let's take a watermelon, which has a cross-sectional area of about 
>>> 0.20 m^2, and we'll drop it from the third story (10 meters up) of a 
>>> city parking garage. The maximal amount of photonic energy it can absorb 
>>> from above is therefore 1370 W/m^2 * 0.2 m^2 = 275 W roughly, certainly 
>>> no more than 300 W. 
>>> 
>>> This is of course presuming that none of the 
>>> photonic energy is reflected and that all of it is absorbed, which isn't 
>>> true but assuming that anyway will give us a maximum limit. 
>>> It takes 1.4 seconds for a watermelon released from rest to fall to the 
>>> ground. During this time, it will absorb 275 W * 1.4 sec = 400 joules roughly. 
>>> 
>>> Since the average watermelon is about 20 pounds or 9 kilograms, 
>>> we can find the speed this 400 Joules could generate: 
>>> 400 J = (1/2)mv^2 = (1/2)*(9 kg)*v^2 
>>> so 
>>> v = 9.4 m/s if ALL of the photonic energy is absorbed and converted into 
>>> kinetic energy rather than heat or anything else. 
>>> 
>>> But the watermelon is observed to have a speed of 9.8 m/s^2 * 1.4 sec = 
>>> 13.7 m/s, which can be measured with a light strobe, a camera, and a 
>>> meter stick mounted at ground level. 
>>> ************************************************* 
>>> ?? 
>>> 
>> Why does a crazy person mine a 7-year-old post, remove all the context, and 
>> apparently have no point? 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> Because I didn't like that you abused of an 86 years old person with
> endless discussions for several years (Fischer),
> seemingly enjoying in a sadistic way your superiority.

Why would I know his age? Why do you? Why was it important?

> 
> And this behavior with this elder is not the only one. 
> 
> It seems that you are fond of this kind of behavior with very old people,
> but feel bad when they die (one year later, in this case).
> 
> I find this attitude despicable.
> 
> Do you get my point now, Bodkin?
> 
> Besides the stupid post, where you use weight instead of mass to
> calculate KE, plus the wrong value of energy, plus confusing
> watts with joules plus the stupid post by itself.

Where did you think I used the weight of the melon?

> 
> Stick with woodworking.
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580125

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>

> Why would I know his age? Why do you? Why was it important?

Ahh! Memory gaps.

Because he told you openly!

He wrote that you wasn't giving a flying fuck for the knowledge he accumulated in his 86 years of life. You DISRESPECTED HIM 
many times, one way or another, in the same thread.

You felt sorry when he died next year, and you wrote so. But he LET KNOW he was ill, and you didn't give a shit.

Why didn't you just LEFT HIM ALONE? And your behavior has been repetitive with MANY than now ARE NOT with us.

What's wrong with you and very old people posting here? Do you think that this place is only for young people?

Live and LET LIVE, Bodkin. Just stop it. You are MEAN even today. I don't care why, but just want you to realize what you did/do.

Just re-read your discussions with elders (I'll not make names here) just in the last 2 years. You know perfectly what I'm writing about.

And THIS THREAD is not the first on its kind that I wrote TO YOU in the past 10 months. 

I warned you about your NASTY behavior with some old person here about 6/7 months ago. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580127

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>> Why would I know his age? Why do you? Why was it important?
> 
> Ahh! Memory gaps.
> 
> Because he told you openly!

Ok, that was almost 8 years ago. 

> 
> He wrote that you wasn't giving a flying fuck for the knowledge he
> accumulated in his 86 years of life. You DISRESPECTED HIM 
> many times, one way or another, in the same thread.

And if he doesn’t know how to do the calculation and I show him, what does
his age have to do with it. 

> 
> You felt sorry when he died next year, and you wrote so. But he LET KNOW
> he was ill, and you didn't give a shit.
> 
> Why didn't you just LEFT HIM ALONE? 

If he’s posting to a discussion forum, do you think he’s looking to be left
alone? 

> And your behavior has been repetitive with MANY than now ARE NOT with us.
> 
> What's wrong with you and very old people posting here? Do you think that
> this place is only for young people?
> 

If old people post here spouting nonsense, what do you think is the proper
response? 

> Live and LET LIVE, Bodkin. Just stop it. You are MEAN even today. I don't
> care why, but just want you to realize what you did/do.

I know exactly what I do. Are you asking that old people (like you) get
treated differently because of their age? More gently, more deferentially,
less direct? WHY? You think they don’t have the strength to own their own
mistakes? 

> 
> Just re-read your discussions with elders (I'll not make names here) just
> in the last 2 years. You know perfectly what I'm writing about.
> 
> And THIS THREAD is not the first on its kind that I wrote TO YOU in the past 10 months. 

I know that. And why do you think I care what you think I should be going?
Just because you’re older?

> 
> I warned you about your NASTY behavior with some old person here about 6/7 months ago. 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580129

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 5:13:52 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: 
> > <snip> 
> > 
> >> Why would I know his age? Why do you? Why was it important? 
> > 
> > Ahh! Memory gaps. 
> > 
> > Because he told you openly!
> Ok, that was almost 8 years ago.
> > 
> > He wrote that you wasn't giving a flying fuck for the knowledge he 
> > accumulated in his 86 years of life. You DISRESPECTED HIM 
> > many times, one way or another, in the same thread.
> And if he doesn’t know how to do the calculation and I show him, what does 
> his age have to do with it.
> > 
> > You felt sorry when he died next year, and you wrote so. But he LET KNOW 
> > he was ill, and you didn't give a shit. 
> > 
> > Why didn't you just LEFT HIM ALONE?
> If he’s posting to a discussion forum, do you think he’s looking to be left 
> alone?
> > And your behavior has been repetitive with MANY than now ARE NOT with us. 
> > 
> > What's wrong with you and very old people posting here? Do you think that 
> > this place is only for young people? 
> >
> If old people post here spouting nonsense, what do you think is the proper 
> response?
> > Live and LET LIVE, Bodkin. Just stop it. You are MEAN even today. I don't 
> > care why, but just want you to realize what you did/do.
> I know exactly what I do. Are you asking that old people (like you) get 
> treated differently because of their age? More gently, more deferentially, 
> less direct? WHY? You think they don’t have the strength to own their own 
> mistakes?
> > 
> > Just re-read your discussions with elders (I'll not make names here) just 
> > in the last 2 years. You know perfectly what I'm writing about. 
> > 
> > And THIS THREAD is not the first on its kind that I wrote TO YOU in the past 10 months.
> I know that. And why do you think I care what you think I should be going? 
> Just because you’re older?
> > 
> > I warned you about your NASTY behavior with some old person here about 6/7 months ago. 
> > 
> >
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ahh! The cornered rat is trying a straw man tactic.

I'm not that older to match your killing targets. I'd need to add 20 years more.

But tell me, sincerely, why do you enjoy torturing very old people?

Does it makes feel you better, woodworker?

You are a fraud, a failed person. And you vent your issues through your pompous posts, Supreme Thinker (among the very old people).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580133

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 5:13:52 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 4:34:06 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>> <snip> 
>>> 
>>>> Why would I know his age? Why do you? Why was it important? 
>>> 
>>> Ahh! Memory gaps. 
>>> 
>>> Because he told you openly!
>> Ok, that was almost 8 years ago.
>>> 
>>> He wrote that you wasn't giving a flying fuck for the knowledge he 
>>> accumulated in his 86 years of life. You DISRESPECTED HIM 
>>> many times, one way or another, in the same thread.
>> And if he doesn’t know how to do the calculation and I show him, what does 
>> his age have to do with it.
>>> 
>>> You felt sorry when he died next year, and you wrote so. But he LET KNOW 
>>> he was ill, and you didn't give a shit. 
>>> 
>>> Why didn't you just LEFT HIM ALONE?
>> If he’s posting to a discussion forum, do you think he’s looking to be left 
>> alone?
>>> And your behavior has been repetitive with MANY than now ARE NOT with us. 
>>> 
>>> What's wrong with you and very old people posting here? Do you think that 
>>> this place is only for young people? 
>>> 
>> If old people post here spouting nonsense, what do you think is the proper 
>> response?
>>> Live and LET LIVE, Bodkin. Just stop it. You are MEAN even today. I don't 
>>> care why, but just want you to realize what you did/do.
>> I know exactly what I do. Are you asking that old people (like you) get 
>> treated differently because of their age? More gently, more deferentially, 
>> less direct? WHY? You think they don’t have the strength to own their own 
>> mistakes?
>>> 
>>> Just re-read your discussions with elders (I'll not make names here) just 
>>> in the last 2 years. You know perfectly what I'm writing about. 
>>> 
>>> And THIS THREAD is not the first on its kind that I wrote TO YOU in the past 10 months.
>> I know that. And why do you think I care what you think I should be going? 
>> Just because you’re older?
>>> 
>>> I warned you about your NASTY behavior with some old person here about 6/7 months ago. 
>>> 
>>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> Ahh! The cornered rat is trying a straw man tactic.
> 
> I'm not that older to match your killing targets. I'd need to add 20 years more.
> 
> But tell me, sincerely, why do you enjoy torturing very old people?

If you view the above post that started this thread as torture, you’ll have
to explain why. 

Let’s look at Ken Seto who is also I’m his mid 80s. He claims Newtonian
basics are all wrong, and that he has a physics theory of everything
despite his being unable to do a lick of math by his own admission. How do
you think this person should be treated? Gently? Deferentially? WHY?

> 
> Does it makes feel you better, woodworker?
> 
> You are a fraud, a failed person. 

What do you claim I am trying to do that I have failed to do? What
fraudulent representation am I putting out there?

> And you vent your issues through your pompous posts, Supreme Thinker
> (among the very old people).
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580140

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 6:06:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip> 

> Let’s look at Ken Seto who is also I’m his mid 80s. He claims Newtonian 
> basics are all wrong, and that he has a physics theory of everything 
> despite his being unable to do a lick of math by his own admission. How do 
> you think this person should be treated? Gently? Deferentially? WHY?

Because you have to RESPECT the elders, SOB!

Not to laugh at him because "he invested all his money in self-publishing", or treating him as if he was some kind of retarded.

And you did the same thing, time after time, with others that LEFT this site because of your bullying.

Karma is a bitch, it's said over there.

No escupas para arriba, we say over here.

If you was at any asian country, they would have you hanging by your balls for your disrespect.

Or here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#580147

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 6:06:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> <snip> 
> 
>> Let’s look at Ken Seto who is also I’m his mid 80s. He claims Newtonian 
>> basics are all wrong, and that he has a physics theory of everything 
>> despite his being unable to do a lick of math by his own admission. How do 
>> you think this person should be treated? Gently? Deferentially? WHY?
> 
> Because you have to RESPECT the elders, SOB!

I respect those who have earned my respect, and the number of candles on a
birthday cake doesn’t do it. 

> 
> Not to laugh at him because "he invested all his money in
> self-publishing", or treating him as if he was some kind of retarded.

What he did was foolish. He self-published a book about a subject he knows
nothing about, because he thought physics would earn him a shinier legacy —
and he has said as much. 

He cannot do high school physics and his response is that anything he does
not understand is rejected and wrong. And you expect people to RESPECT
that, because if his years?

And you. What respect have you shown to people older than you on this
forum? None. You flame liberally and randomly, and you offer the excuse
that you are “only trolling”.  Is “only trolling” an expression of respect?
When you do that, do YOU earn respect?

> 
> And you did the same thing, time after time, with others that LEFT this
> site because of your bullying.
> 
> Karma is a bitch, it's said over there.
> 
> No escupas para arriba, we say over here.
> 
> If you was at any asian country, they would have you hanging by your
> balls for your disrespect.
> 
> Or here.
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web