Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583850 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 187 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-23 13:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:31 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 14:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 13:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-24 22:29 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:26 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 16:04 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 09:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 10:05 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:37 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:02 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 14:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:32 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:20 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:26 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-26 12:45 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 11:47 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:27 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-26 13:00 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 19:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 23:38 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 00:41 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 18:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-28 22:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-29 12:52 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-29 10:06 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-29 21:21 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 12:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:39 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 20:01 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 13:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 13:55 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:32 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 22:00 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:12 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:50 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:18 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 18:33 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 23:01 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-26 17:51 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 22:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:14 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 18:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 09:30 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 15:58 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-27 14:36 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 06:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 08:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ufonaut <ufonaut9@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 17:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:20 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:35 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 10:00 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 19:07 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:43 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:17 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 21:45 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 07:56 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 08:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 16:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:43 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 16:25 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 11:58 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:35 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 12:14 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:08 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:43 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-25 10:56 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 10:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-26 12:46 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 09:13 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:05 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 20:33 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-26 13:59 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 21:10 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 07:22 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 16:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 19:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 15:29 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 18:13 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:49 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 16:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:19 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:26 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-28 19:36 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-28 07:33 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-28 11:50 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-28 11:49 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 21:30 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 16:09 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-30 13:10 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Colin Ohba <owfs@gcftghsf.tk> - 2022-04-30 18:28 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-30 14:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-05-01 12:15 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2022-05-01 14:52 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-04-27 10:08 +0300
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-27 03:01 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-27 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-27 17:17 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 13:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 11:24 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> - 2022-04-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 08:54 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-25 14:19 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:25 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 09:45 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Dean Totolos <hcdp@xurrppjn.cn> - 2022-04-25 21:16 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-25 12:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Stan Fultoni <fultonistan@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 15:46 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2022-04-26 10:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-23 18:07 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-23 23:42 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> - 2022-04-24 08:11 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-24 22:32 -0400
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 18:36 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-24 15:55 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 13:12 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2022-04-25 10:25 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 01:43 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-25 06:03 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2022-04-25 15:19 -0500
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 09:58 -0700
Re: Stationary Points in Space Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-26 17:18 +0000
Re: Stationary Points in Space The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:30 -0700
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4brv0$4ea$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584259 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of >>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields. >>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually >>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, >>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously >>>> incorrect statements. >>> >>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually >>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric >>> and magnetic fields. >> >> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields. >> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic >> field WAVES at right angles to each other. > > You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding something correctly. > >> >>>> Hint: electric and magnetic fields are an APPROXIMATION to >>>> the physical situation in which there are trillions and >>>> trillions of photons having the appropriate configuration >>>> to make the approximation valid [#]. E & M fields cannot be >>>> used to model a situation in which there is just a single >>>> photon, or even when there are just a few million of them. >>> >>> It's done every day with radio telescopes and radar guns. >> >> Nope. Radio/microwave photons are so low in energy they aren't >> individually detectable. It is the mass behavior of trillions of photons >> which make radio/microwaves behave so much like the classic wave model >> of light. > > Radio telescopes are dish shaped so they can FOCUS MORE PHOTONS onto > a specific point just as regular telescopes focus photons on your eye. > The more photons you can focus on a screen, the clearer the object that > emitted the photons will appear on that screen. The bigger the dish, the more > photons you can collect. > > WAVES are NOT involved. All that is involved is collecting more PHOTONS > so that you can convert them into an IMAGE. The "wave-like properties" of > a photon will define the type of photon. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 10:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d450d5fd-bc52-4336-8a81-d057add409e0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584272 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > >>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of > >>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields. > >>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually > >>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, > >>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously > >>>> incorrect statements. > >>> > >>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually > >>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric > >>> and magnetic fields. > >> > >> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields. > >> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic > >> field WAVES at right angles to each other. > > > > You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > something correctly. There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of well over 100 college physics textbooks. What I've found is that very few physics textbooks agree with EACH OTHER. That's what got me interested in figuring out WHY most physics textbooks are in disagreement with each other, and why MOST do not accurately quote Einstein. The answer is: The authors of textbooks have THEIR OWN views about how Relativity works. Sometimes they agree with one another, sometimes they don't. When they disagree with Einstein, they write what they believe and claim it is what Einstein meant or wrote. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 17:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4bvl0$1ttu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584282 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:38:09 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2022 11:45 AM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:36:39 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/25/22 3:59 PM, Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>> I view a photon as a little packet of energy that is in the form of >>>>>>> oscillating electric and magnetic fields. >>>>>> No wonder you are so confused. That is NOT AT ALL what a photon actually >>>>>> is. Until you sit down and do some serious studying of modern physics, >>>>>> you will remain confused and will continue to make outrageously >>>>>> incorrect statements. >>>>> >>>>> Actually, YOU are the one who needs to do some research. Virtually >>>>> every source describes a photon as consisting of oscillating electric >>>>> and magnetic fields. >>>> >>>> NO physics teaches that photons are oscillating E/M fields. >>>> The closest you'll see is a light WAVE shown as electric and magnetic >>>> field WAVES at right angles to each other. >>> >>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. >> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook >> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe >> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much >> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding >> something correctly. > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > well over 100 college physics textbooks. A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability limit, then cite them. > > What I've found is that very few physics textbooks agree with EACH OTHER. > That's what got me interested in figuring out WHY most physics textbooks > are in disagreement with each other, and why MOST do not accurately quote > Einstein. > > The answer is: The authors of textbooks have THEIR OWN views about how > Relativity works. Sometimes they agree with one another, sometimes they > don't. When they disagree with Einstein, they write what they believe and > claim it is what Einstein meant or wrote. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6aa0f477-88f6-4bf8-89d1-299382f26e77n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584290 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > >> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > >> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > >> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > >> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > >> something correctly. > > > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > > well over 100 college physics textbooks. > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have dozens more that I just categorized as "books": A College Text-Book of Physics Arthur L. Kimball A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts Thomas Young A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz A Primer of Special Relativity P. L. Sardesai A Source Book in Physics William Francis Magie An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow An Introduction to Relativity Jaylant V. Narlikar An Introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity Robert Katz Astrophysics for Physicists Arnab Rai Choudhuri Basic Physics: A self-teaching guide Karl F. Kuhn Classical Mechanics Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko College Physics Eugenia Etkina, Michael Gentile & Alan Van Heuvelen College Physics Hugh D. Young College Physics Paul Peter Urone & Roger Hinrichs College Physics – A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight, Brian Jones, Stuart Field College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & Chris Vuille Computational Physics Nicholas J. Giordano Essential College Physics with Mastering Physics Andrew Rex & Richard Wolfson Essential Physics John Matolyak & Ajawad Haija For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. Backman Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker Fundamentals of Physics, Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics R. Shankar Gravitation Charles W. Meisner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler Handbook of Space-Time Abhay Ashtekar, Vesselin Petkov (Eds.) How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life Louis A. Bloomfield Introducing Einstein's Relativity Ray d'Inverno Introduction to Classical Mechanics A. P. French Introduction to Classical Mechanics – with Problems and Solutions David Morin Introduction to Electrodynamics David J. Griffiths Introduction to Modern Optics Grant R. Fowles Introduction to Special Relativity Robert Resnick Introduction to Special Relativity Wolfgang Rindler Modern Classical Physics: optics, fluids, plasmas, elasticity, relativity, and statistical physics Kip S. Thorne & Roger D. Blandford Modern Measurements: Fundamentals and Applications Alessandro Ferraro et al Modern Physics - 3rd edition Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer Modern Physics (5th Edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn Modern Physics (6th edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers John R. Taylor, Chris D. Zafiratos & Michael A. Dubson Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers Stephen T. Thornton and Andrew Rex Optics (4th Edition) Eugene Hecht Physics James S. Walker Physics - 2nd edition Alan Giambattista, Betty Richardson & Robert C. Richardson Physics – Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 1 Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 2 Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 3 Hans C. Ohanian, John T. Markert Physics for Scientists & Engineers – 6th edition Raymond A. Serway & John W. Jewett Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics Douglas C. Giancoli Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 3rd ed. Paul M Fishbane; Stephen Gasiorowicz; Stephen T Thornton Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 6th ed. Paul A. Tipler & Gene Mosca Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight Physics: A Conceptual World View Larry Kirkpatric & Gregory Francis Physics: Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli Primer of Special Relativity, A P. L. Sardesai Relativity and its Roots Banesh Hoffmann Space and time in contemporary physics: an introduction to the theory of relativity and gravitation Moritz Schlick Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction J. B. Kennedy Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity - 2nd ed. Edwin F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler The Fascination of Physics Jacqueline D. Spears & Dean Zollman The Geometry of Special Relativity Norbert Dragon Understanding Physics David Cassidy, Gerald Holton, James Rutherford Understanding Physics Karen Cummings, Priscilla W. Laws, Edward F. Redish and Patrick J. Cooney Understanding Physics Michael Mansfield and Colm O'Sullivan University Physics George Arfken University Physics -Volume 3 Samuel J. Ling et al. University Physics with Modern Physics - 12th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman Here is a sample of some that I just categorize as "books": The Special Theory of Relativity David Bohm The Special Theory of Relativity H. Muirhead The Special Theory of Relativity J. Aharoni The Theory of Fundamental Processes Richard Feynman The Theory of Relativity C. Moller The Theory of Relativity Robert D. Carmichael > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability > limit, then cite them. I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a physics "textbook." But, I might do it when I find some spare time. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a99df3b0-335d-4f4a-8376-209a435d63b5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584304 |
El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > > > well over 100 college physics textbooks. > > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > <SNIP> list of books > > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a > > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability > > limit, then cite them. > I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, > since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a > physics "textbook." > > But, I might do it when I find some spare time. > > Ed Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by using spacetime mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <caa253c5-18b4-4e51-81e1-242eb8bc9adcn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584314 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > > > > well over 100 college physics textbooks. > > > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > > > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > > > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > > dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > > > <SNIP> list of books > > > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a > > > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability > > > limit, then cite them. > > I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, > > since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a > > physics "textbook." > > > > But, I might do it when I find some spare time. > > > > Ed > Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify it, but I get bogged down in the second part. I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens more on bookshelves around me. Here's a passage from "Origin Story" by David Christian: "At the earliest moment for which we have some evidence, a split second after the big bang, the universe consisted of pure, random, undifferentiated, shapeless energy. We can think of energy as the potential for something to happen, the capacity to do things or change things. The energies inside the primeval atom were staggering, many trillions of degrees above absolute zero. There was a brief period of super-rapid expansion known as inflation. Expansion was so fast that much of the universe may have been projected far beyond anything we will ever see. That means that what we see today is probably just a tiny part of our entire universe." Note the last sentence. I do NOT sit down and read textbooks from cover to cover. There is too much in them that is of no immediate interest. So, I just search for and read the parts that are of current interest to me to answer some question. Ed > > He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by using spacetime mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 15:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7d31ee89-944c-4b13-a289-7095c6da3407n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584317 |
El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 17:36:48 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). > As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's > 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify > it, but I get bogged down in the second part. > > I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens > more on bookshelves around me. > From what you put into your web page, those kindle books are more of the type ""Star Trek: The Pod Directive." A podcast about Star Trek?" > Here's a passage from "Origin Story" by David Christian: > "At the earliest moment for which we have some evidence, a split second after the big bang, the universe consisted of pure, random, undifferentiated, shapeless energy. We can think of energy as the potential for something to happen, the capacity to do things or change things. The energies inside the primeval atom were staggering, many trillions of degrees above absolute zero. There was a brief period of super-rapid expansion known as inflation. Expansion was so fast that much of the universe may have been projected far beyond anything we will ever see. That means that what we see today is probably just a tiny part of our entire universe." > > Note the last sentence. > > I do NOT sit down and read textbooks from cover to cover. There is too > much in them that is of no immediate interest. So, I just search for and > read the parts that are of current interest to me to answer some question. > By which you are just acknowledging that you select some parts of those books, which you believe, in your uninformed opinion, support your beliefs. You have also recognized your absolute ignorance of even simple algebraic expressions. For instance, what parts have you read from the book Gravitation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 01:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <t4ck2c$brh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584317 |
Ed Lake wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió: >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >>> >> <SNIP> list of books >>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a >>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability >>>> limit, then cite them. >>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, >>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a >>> physics "textbook." >>> >>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time. >>> >>> Ed >> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). > > As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's > 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify > it, but I get bogged down in the second part. > > I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens > more on bookshelves around me. LOL. sigh ; facepalm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-27 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99e67dac-fdaa-40c7-8a81-db27633c4fb4n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584326 |
On Thursday, 28 April 2022 at 01:36:48 UTC+2, Python wrote: > Ed Lake wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > >> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió: > >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > >>> > >> <SNIP> list of books > >>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a > >>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability > >>>> limit, then cite them. > >>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, > >>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a > >>> physics "textbook." > >>> > >>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time. > >>> > >>> Ed > >> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). > > > > As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's > > 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify > > it, but I get bogged down in the second part. > > > > I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens > > more on bookshelves around me. > LOL. sigh ; facepalm Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again, and trying to pretend he knows something. Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic? See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory, it has to be formulable in the language of the theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for that, poor stinker?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 16:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4eg8j$cal$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584317 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió: >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >>> >> <SNIP> list of books >>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a >>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability >>>> limit, then cite them. >>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, >>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a >>> physics "textbook." >>> >>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time. >>> >>> Ed >> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf >> format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the >> phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". >> He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read >> Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). > > As usual, you don't know what you are talking about, Paparios. I've read Einstein's > 1905 paper dozens of times. I've even tried to summarize it and simplify > it, but I get bogged down in the second part. > > I read science books all the time. I have DOZENS in my Kindle and dozens > more on bookshelves around me. See my comment about your list of textbooks (70 or so), and how it seems unlikely that these are actually on your bookshelf. > > Here's a passage from "Origin Story" by David Christian: > "At the earliest moment for which we have some evidence, a split second > after the big bang, the universe consisted of pure, random, > undifferentiated, shapeless energy. We can think of energy as the > potential for something to happen, the capacity to do things or change > things. The energies inside the primeval atom were staggering, many > trillions of degrees above absolute zero. There was a brief period of > super-rapid expansion known as inflation. Expansion was so fast that much > of the universe may have been projected far beyond anything we will ever > see. That means that what we see today is probably just a tiny part of > our entire universe." > > Note the last sentence. Yes. That’s true. That does NOT mean that there IS a center to the Big Bang at all, but that it is outside our observable universe. > > I do NOT sit down and read textbooks from cover to cover. There is too > much in them that is of no immediate interest. So, I just search for and > read the parts that are of current interest to me to answer some question. And I commented on this as well. This is not a productive way to read books. They aren’t encyclopedias. > > Ed > >> >> He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions >> the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by >> using spacetime mathematics. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 07:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be09794d-ff02-4590-8c5f-f3a3d2222aefn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584314 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > > > > well over 100 college physics textbooks. > > > A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > > > Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > > > Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > > dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > > > <SNIP> list of books > > > If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a > > > definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability > > > limit, then cite them. > > I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, > > since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a > > physics "textbook." > > > > But, I might do it when I find some spare time. > > > > Ed > Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). You need to understand what "RESEARCH" means, Paparios. When doing research on a subject, you do not read every book from cover to cover to see if it has anything about the topic you are researching, you just read the PARTS ABOUT that topic. You can research 500 books in the time it takes to read one book from cover to cover. It is incredible that you do not understand that. Have you never done any research? > > He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by using spacetime mathematics. When it is relevant, I mention every book that I use in my research. This will be my last response to you in this thread. I have a lot of other things I need to do more than explaining things to you over and over and over. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 14:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4e9u9$175v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584362 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: >> El miércoles, 27 de abril de 2022 a las 15:52:29 UTC-4, escribió: >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >>> >> <SNIP> list of books >>>> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a >>>> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability >>>> limit, then cite them. >>> I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, >>> since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a >>> physics "textbook." >>> >>> But, I might do it when I find some spare time. >>> >>> Ed >> Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf >> format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the >> phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". >> He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read >> Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). > > You need to understand what "RESEARCH" means, Paparios. When doing research > on a subject, you do not read every book from cover to cover to see if it has anything > about the topic you are researching, you just read the PARTS ABOUT that topic. > You can research 500 books in the time it takes to read one book from cover to cover. No, that’s a bad program for books. A REALLY bad idea. Books are not like encyclopedias with little independent articles in them. If there is something on page 198, it is implicit that you already understand the material in pages 1-197 and it’s going to USE that implication in presenting what’s on 198. It is IMPOSSIBLE in a book to understand correctly what’s on page 198 unless you already know the stuff in pages 1-197. If this is how you have modeled your “research”, then it is no wonder you have absolutely no understanding of anything in books and the only things you have absorbed are short web articles you’ve been able to digest as a whole in a sitting. > > It is incredible that you do not understand that. Have you never done any research? > >> >> He runs like hell from any mathematical symbol. It is funny he mentions >> the book Gravitation from Meisner, Thorne and Wheeler, which starts by >> using spacetime mathematics. > > When it is relevant, I mention every book that I use in my research. > > This will be my last response to you in this thread. I have a lot of other things > I need to do more than explaining things to you over and over and over. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0bdb200f-3697-403d-9cf5-36b59996334bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #584362 |
El jueves, 28 de abril de 2022 a las 10:40:54 UTC-4, det...@outlook.com escribió: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 4:20:08 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote: > > Edward approach is quite clear. He collects all these books (in pdf format) and then, using the pdf search tool, searches the book for the phrases he is interested on, such as "Einstein postulate" or "photon". He has never read any of those books (the same as he has not read Einstein 1905 paper past the first page). > You need to understand what "RESEARCH" means, Paparios. When doing research > on a subject, you do not read every book from cover to cover to see if it has anything > about the topic you are researching, you just read the PARTS ABOUT that topic. > You can research 500 books in the time it takes to read one book from cover to cover. > > It is incredible that you do not understand that. Have you never done any research? Actually yes! I have been doing research for over 45 years. My papers, reporting my research, are available in Google Scholar. You, on the other hand, just write nonsensical "papers" which are "published" in a very low quality vixra.org web site.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 16:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4efb2$1ug2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584304 |
Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >> Ed Lake wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. >>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook >>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe >>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much >>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding >>>> something correctly. >>> >>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. >> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > dozens more that I just categorized as "books": OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these are actually in your possession. I would have doubts without a link to a photo of your bookshelf showing all of these. I can explain why I have doubts. About 40 of the titles you list below are first-year introductory physics books. None of those are available in PDF except illegally or at costs close to print books, and they do not render at all well on Kindle (and in fact are not available as official Kindle editions). You also cite multiple editions of the same textbook, which is a lot to pay for essentially the same content (what changes from edition to edition is mostly the end-of-chapter problems and worked examples, which you do not care about). The average storefront (online or bricks-and-mortar store) price for each those introductory books ranges from $100 to $125. This means that if indeed you had those 40 first-year textbooks on your shelf, you’d have spent $4000 - $5000 on them, since the onset of your interest in physics a couple years ago. What would be particularly alarming about you spending $4000-$5000 on introductory textbooks is that you have learned no introductory physics. To cement this even more, it’s worth noting that first-year introductory textbooks as a rule say next to nothing about any of the following subjects: Big Bang cosmology, quantum fields, or anything like a comprehensive view of the behavior of photons. To claim that ANY of those introductory books would have anything to say in agreement with your position about those topics is simply dishonest. As for the non-introductory texts, it’s worth noting that a lot of those ALSO will have nothing to say about Big Bang cosmology or quantum fields or the behavior of photons. For example, the books by Thomas Young, Walter Lewin, Nicholas Giordano, Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolendow, A. P. French, David Morin, David Griffiths, Herbert Goldstein and Charles Pool and John Safko — none of these will have anything to do with those topics. So, let’s get a bit real here, Ed. Using books that you ACTUALLY have in your possession, which of them have substantive discussion (beyond a single paragraph or a half page) on Big Bang cosmology or the behavior of quantum fields or the behavior of photons? Do you actually know? > > A College Text-Book of Physics Arthur L. Kimball > A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts Thomas Young > A First Course in General Relativity Bernard F. Schultz > A Primer of Special Relativity P. L. Sardesai > A Source Book in Physics William Francis Magie > An introduction to Mechanics Daniel Kleppner and Robert Kolenkow > An Introduction to Relativity Jaylant V. Narlikar > An Introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity Robert Katz > Astrophysics for Physicists Arnab Rai Choudhuri > Basic Physics: A self-teaching guide Karl F. Kuhn > Classical Mechanics Herbert Goldstein, Charles P. Poole, John L. Safko > College Physics Eugenia Etkina, Michael Gentile & Alan Van Heuvelen > College Physics Hugh D. Young > College Physics Paul Peter Urone & Roger Hinrichs > College Physics – A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight, Brian Jones, Stuart Field > College Physics (Eighth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > College Physics (Ninth Edition) Raymond A. Serway & Chris Vuille > College Physics (Seventh Edition?) Raymond A. Serway, Jerry S. Faughn & Chris Vuille > Computational Physics Nicholas J. Giordano > Essential College Physics with Mastering Physics Andrew Rex & Richard Wolfson > Essential Physics John Matolyak & Ajawad Haija > For the Love of Physics Walter Lewin > Foundations of Astronomy (Eleventh Edition) Michael A. Seeds, Dana E. Backman > Fundamentals of College Physics Peter J. Nolan > Fundamentals of Modern Physics Peter J. Nolan > Fundamentals of Modern Physics Robert Martin Eisberg > Fundamentals of Physics (Eighth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics (Ninth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics (Tenth Edition) Jearl Walker > Fundamentals of Physics, Mechanics, Relativity and Thermodynamics R. Shankar > Gravitation Charles W. Meisner, Kip S. Thorne, John Archibald Wheeler > Handbook of Space-Time Abhay Ashtekar, Vesselin Petkov (Eds.) > How Things Work: The Physics of Everyday Life Louis A. Bloomfield > Introducing Einstein's Relativity Ray d'Inverno > Introduction to Classical Mechanics A. P. French > Introduction to Classical Mechanics – with Problems and Solutions David Morin > Introduction to Electrodynamics David J. Griffiths > Introduction to Modern Optics Grant R. Fowles > Introduction to Special Relativity Robert Resnick > Introduction to Special Relativity Wolfgang Rindler > Modern Classical Physics: optics, fluids, plasmas, elasticity, > relativity, and statistical physics Kip S. Thorne & Roger D. Blandford > Modern Measurements: Fundamentals and Applications Alessandro Ferraro et al > Modern Physics - 3rd edition Raymond A. Serway, Clement J. Moses, Curt A. Moyer > Modern Physics (5th Edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn > Modern Physics (6th edition) Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn > Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers John R. Taylor, Chris D. > Zafiratos & Michael A. Dubson > Modern Physics for Scientists and Engineers Stephen T. Thornton and Andrew Rex > Optics (4th Edition) Eugene Hecht > Physics James S. Walker > Physics - 2nd edition Alan Giambattista, Betty Richardson & Robert C. Richardson > Physics – Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli > Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 1 Hans C. > Ohanian, John T. Markert > Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 2 Hans C. > Ohanian, John T. Markert > Physics for Engineers and Scientists - 3rd edition – Volume 3 Hans C. > Ohanian, John T. Markert > Physics for Scientists & Engineers – 6th edition Raymond A. Serway & John W. Jewett > Physics for Scientists & Engineers with Modern Physics Douglas C. Giancoli > Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 3rd ed. Paul > M Fishbane; Stephen Gasiorowicz; Stephen T Thornton > Physics for Scientists and Engineers – With Modern Physics - 6th ed. Paul > A. Tipler & Gene Mosca > Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Approach Randall D. Knight > Physics: A Conceptual World View Larry Kirkpatric & Gregory Francis > Physics: Principles with Applications (7th Edition) Douglas C. Giancoli > Primer of Special Relativity, A P. L. Sardesai > Relativity and its Roots Banesh Hoffmann > Space and time in contemporary physics: an introduction to the theory of > relativity and gravitation Moritz Schlick > Space, Time and Einstein: An Introduction J. B. Kennedy > Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity Edwin F. Taylor > & John Archibald Wheeler > Spacetime Physics: An Introduction to Special Relativity - 2nd ed. Edwin > F. Taylor & John Archibald Wheeler > The Fascination of Physics Jacqueline D. Spears & Dean Zollman > The Geometry of Special Relativity Norbert Dragon > Understanding Physics David Cassidy, Gerald Holton, James Rutherford > Understanding Physics Karen Cummings, Priscilla W. Laws, Edward F. Redish > and Patrick J. Cooney > Understanding Physics Michael Mansfield and Colm O'Sullivan > University Physics George Arfken > University Physics -Volume 3 Samuel J. Ling et al. > University Physics with Modern Physics - 12th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman > University Physics with Modern Physics - 14th ed. Hugh D. Young & Roger A. Freedman > > Here is a sample of some that I just categorize as "books": > > The Special Theory of Relativity David Bohm > The Special Theory of Relativity H. Muirhead > The Special Theory of Relativity J. Aharoni > The Theory of Fundamental Processes Richard Feynman > The Theory of Relativity C. Moller > The Theory of Relativity Robert D. Carmichael > >> If you have five textbooks that you can point to that say that there is a >> definite center to the Big Bang, but that it lies outside the observability >> limit, then cite them. > > I'd have to dig through them, and I see no point in doing that right now, > since you'd just argue that the book doesn't meet your standards for a > physics "textbook." > > But, I might do it when I find some spare time. > > Ed > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626ADBB0.239B@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584378 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > > >>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > >>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > >>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > >>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > >>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > >>>> something correctly. > >>> > >>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > >>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > >> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > >> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > >> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > > > > Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > > dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > > OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have > provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these > are actually in your possession. It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll explain later why that is important). -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 20:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4etad$rcg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584410 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>> >>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. >>>>>> No, thatâs not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook >>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe >>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much >>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding >>>>>> something correctly. >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? Iâd like a listing of the first 30 please. >>>> Note that Brian Greeneâs The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>> Hawkingâs A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>> >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >> >> OK, so letâs have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have >> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these >> are actually in your possession. > > > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > explain later why that is important). > I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626B0ED6.1DCC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584428 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>> > >>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > >>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > >>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > >>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > >>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > >>>>>> something correctly. > >>>>> > >>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > >>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > >>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > >>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > >>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > >>> > >>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > >>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > >> > >> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have > >> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these > >> are actually in your possession. > > > > > > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > > explain later why that is important). > > > > I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not > introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: > > It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > > format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > > .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > > that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > > explain later why that is important). -- 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 22:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t4f49o$1mn6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #584439 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. >>>>>>>> No, thatâÂÂs not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook >>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe >>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much >>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding >>>>>>>> something correctly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of >>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. >>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? IâÂÂd like a listing of the first 30 please. >>>>>> Note that Brian GreeneâÂÂs The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. >>>>>> HawkingâÂÂs A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. >>>>> >>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have >>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": >>>> >>>> OK, so letâÂÂs have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have >>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these >>>> are actually in your possession. >>> >>> >>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub >>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in >>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see >>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll >>> explain later why that is important). >>> >> >> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not >> introductory college textbooks. Thereâs a reason why that is so. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed. Kindle-native ebooks are trade books, usually, not textbooks. Free PDFs are usually crap books self-published and posted for attention by loons. I have no doubt he has lots of books that he can listen to in audio format. For obvious reasons, those will not be physics textbooks. > >>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub >>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in >>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see >>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll >>> explain later why that is important). > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 16:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626B1EB4.C6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584444 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > >>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > >>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > >>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > >>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > >>>>>>>> something correctly. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > >>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > >>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > >>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > >>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > >>>>> > >>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > >>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > >>>> > >>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have > >>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these > >>>> are actually in your possession. > >>> > >>> > >>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > >>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > >>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > >>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > >>> explain later why that is important). > >>> > >> > >> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not > >> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: > > That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks > he listed. I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed." Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed that you seem to believe he doesn't have it in ebook format? Just name one title..uno. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-28 17:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626B2AC4.AE6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #584447 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> > > >> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:48:19 PM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 11:45:23 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Ed Lake wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> You may be right, which shows the sorry state of college physics textbooks. > > >>>>>>>> No, that’s not the right conclusion. If you find that every textbook > > >>>>>>>> disagrees with something you think is true, then it is a mistake to believe > > >>>>>>>> that you are right and every single textbook is wrong. What is a much > > >>>>>>>> better strategy is to conclude that it is YOU that is not understanding > > >>>>>>>> something correctly. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> There are plenty of textbooks that agree with me. I have a collection of > > >>>>>>> well over 100 college physics textbooks. > > >>>>>> A hundred TEXTBOOKS? I’d like a listing of the first 30 please. > > >>>>>> Note that Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos is not a textbook. > > >>>>>> Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is not a textbook. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Here are about 70 that I have categorized as "textbooks." I could have > > >>>>> dozens more that I just categorized as "books": > > >>>> > > >>>> OK, so let’s have a small moment of truth-telling here, Ed. You have > > >>>> provided a listing of 70 books, but you fell short of claiming that these > > >>>> are actually in your possession. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> It turns out that I have 152 books in .pdf format, 11 books in .epub > > >>> format (which my computer can read to me, if I want), and 2 books in > > >>> .mobi format which I can theoretically read on my Kindle. I also see > > >>> that only 31 of the 152 books in .pdf format are non-searchable (I'll > > >>> explain later why that is important). > > >>> > > >> > > >> I have a few hundred trade books in ebook formats as well. But not > > >> introductory college textbooks. There’s a reason why that is so. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > > > > > > > I only posted what Ed Lake wrote: > > > > That I don’t doubt. I’m sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks > > he listed. > > I'm a little confused about what you wrote: "...sure he has lots of ebooks. Just not the textbooks he listed." > > Can you name a (one) title of an ebook he listed that you seem to believe he doesn't have it in ebook format? Just name one title..uno. Or are you saying he has textbooks in ebook formats but not the kind you open up like a real hardcover book with pages made of paper??? I'm confused. I don't know how to read through hoops... > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web