Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391989 > unrolled thread
| Started by | numbernumber1964@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-10 15:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-09 11:39 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 254 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 15:26 -0700
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-10 17:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:16 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 16:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:47 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 00:15 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:30 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 19:03 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-11 04:19 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 17:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2016-09-11 05:35 +0200
Re: Particle physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-21 13:16 +1000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 13:12 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 12:35 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 20:36 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-15 15:24 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 14:43 -0700
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-15 17:25 -0500
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:14 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-16 03:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:01 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 16:30 -0700
Re: Particle physics Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2016-09-18 03:12 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 13:10 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 17:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:26 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 11:29 -0500
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:41 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:12 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 18:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 14:31 +0000
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:21 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-19 23:44 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-20 08:37 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-20 17:51 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 13:42 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-22 21:54 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-23 22:13 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-25 02:29 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 16:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 02:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:32 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 22:00 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 08:48 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 11:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:25 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-29 00:34 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:05 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 01:52 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:19 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:27 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:08 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:20 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:26 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 16:57 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:30 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:56 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:12 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:31 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:56 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:02 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:43 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:09 -0500
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 16:52 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 02:53 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:12 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:33 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:00 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:40 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-01 20:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 05:28 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 04:39 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 12:07 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 05:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 14:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 07:33 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 21:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 22:01 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 15:07 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 01:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-02 19:49 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 03:58 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 04:43 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 13:46 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 07:56 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 20:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:06 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-03 15:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:30 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:11 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:18 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:56 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 03:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 07:45 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 13:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 20:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 16:22 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-08 14:35 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 03:07 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:14 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 03:18 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:17 -0500
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 16:57 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 04:03 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:19 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:25 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:47 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:15 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:29 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 14:48 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 09:55 -0500
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:20 -0500
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:38 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:46 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 17:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 08:23 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 14:17 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 12:30 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 20:50 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:04 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:47 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 06:09 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 16:24 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:38 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:26 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-05 04:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 17:04 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 13:06 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 09:14 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 02:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 07:23 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 02:52 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-06 21:25 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 06:16 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 06:44 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 20:29 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-07 20:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-08 14:17 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-08 15:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 02:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 04:50 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 12:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 06:19 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 20:34 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-09 19:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:11 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-10 04:24 -0700
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 14:20 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-10 03:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-09 02:44 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 09:25 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 12:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-07 12:25 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 17:01 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 04:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 08:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 16:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 12:25 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:09 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 09:21 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 22:04 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 17:16 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-03 23:19 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 02:33 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 18:11 +0200
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 14:26 -0500
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 10:16 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-01 20:53 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-02 02:18 +0000
Re: Particle physics Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-10-05 18:00 +0200
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-10-05 17:29 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-25 17:01 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 02:39 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 14:22 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 09:44 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-26 21:42 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 06:12 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 10:59 +0000
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-28 04:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 09:09 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 20:05 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 16:35 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-29 12:13 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:22 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-30 01:40 +0000
Re: Particle physics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 07:16 -0500
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 10:38 -0500
Re: Particle physics Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2016-09-28 20:21 +0000
Re: Particle physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-28 20:35 -0500
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 17:19 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:11 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 12:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 15:23 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-20 20:06 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 16:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:56 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 10:58 -0700
Re: Particle physics akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 13:46 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 11:52 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 15:17 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-24 16:03 -0700
Re: Particle physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-24 18:12 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 11:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:34 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 12:57 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 10:29 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-29 13:04 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:08 +0200
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 13:23 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 12:10 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-01 21:50 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-02 08:23 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 11:18 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-02 15:09 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 15:53 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-04 14:31 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:01 -0700
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-08 15:14 -0700
Re: Particle physics Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-10-09 19:27 +0200
Re: Particle physics numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:39 -0700
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 08:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nslol5$19qm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394329 |
On 9/29/2016 10:18 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>>>>> That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: >>>>>>> you know full well that most authors use the term "rest mass" >>>>>>> instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, boy: he said, she said. >>>> >>>> No, this isn't between you and me. >>> >>> Yes it is. "Some do, most don't": YOUR words. Without an >>> exhaustive survey of all writings on the subject, it's >>> entirely a matter of your opinion vs mine as to which >>> group is the more numerous. >> >> No, it isn't. > > Wrong. > >> The exhaustive catalog of writings is out there. > > It's out of date. What???? The catalog of writings is current because it includes the latest writings. What are you TALKING about. > >> All one >> has to do is to go out there and look through them. These are what are >> called "documented facts". If there is a dispute over what the >> documented facts are, then all that's needed is for both parties to go >> research the documented facts. I believe I've read more textbooks than >> you on this subject, > > Your belief is not good enough. Would you like to compare libraries? > >> given what you've said already is the basis for >> your statements. I don't owe you a count. > > I didn't say you do. > >> You owe yourself a better look at documented facts. > > The matter at hand here is a trivioal one, undeserving of the > effort required to resolve the issue. Moreover, it's enough > for my point that, as YOU said "some do" use the term "rest > mass". > > With "most authors" all I did was overstate the case. Your > "technical term" card remains spurious because the term > "invariant mass" is not invariably the one used. Nor did I say that it was. However, I did say that it is used MORE OFTEN than rest mass, and that "variable mass" (something you incorrectly attributed to Einstein) is NOT something that physicists use in their research and haven't for many decades. Whether you got the impression from a high school book over five decades ago that they did, is irrelevant. > > ----snipo---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 16:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2001428.ElGaqSPkdT@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #394329 |
Ned Latham wrote: > [“rest mass”, “relativistic mass”] > With "most authors" all I did was overstate the case. It is not even a majority of authors, assuming that would mean something. You really should read on the subjects you are posting about some time, for example <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_mass> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 04:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurovl.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394255 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > > > Why don't you read first, and THEN judge? > > > > > > > > Did that. > > > > > > > > Read about Young's experiment, and the incorrect interpretation > > > > of the result. Read about Bequerel's discovery, and the incorrect > > > > conclusion that followed its correct interpretation. > > > > > > Yes. So? > > > > You don't question the statements "incorrect interpretation" > > and "incorrect conclusion"? > > > > > Is it your expectation that science moves without mistakes? > > > > I expect that when science runs into an incorrigible difficulty, > > as when Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, scientists > > will take a long hard look at the "knowledge" the difficulty > > conflicts with. > > Which they do. No. I note that you still have not questioned either of the statements above about incorrectness. AFAICT, no physicist has ever questioned the matters behind them either. > Which is how things like quantum mechanics and > relativity came about to begin with -- questioning the "knowledge" > the observation comes in conflict with. > > Now, what observation today do you think is in conflict with current > "knowledge"? Be specific. It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a wave interfere4nce pattern. Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. AFAICT, no effort has ever been made to interret it differently. And *that* is not science. Because of that interpretation, the experiment is regarded as an uneqivocal contradiction of any particle model of light; ie, it became "knowledge" that no particle model is sustainable. But in 1839 Henri Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. Phyicists correctly interpreted it as incompatible with any wave model of light, but then they strayed away from science again. Bequerel's discovery contradicts the "knowledge" that no particle model is sustainable. Instead of taking a long hard look at that "knowledge" and how they came about it, they concluded that neither model is sustainable. Until they take that long hard look at their *assumption* wrt the particle model, and confirm or contradict it in a genuinely unequivoxal matter, *without* recourse to "knowledge" from later times, their pronouncements have no credibility, and their work since Bequerel's day is invalid. All of it. > > > > Read about the mountains of postulates that have been piled atop > > > > it and each other in the century or so since. > > > > > > Well, first of all, maybe the mountain isn't as tall as you think it is. > > > For example, you claimed Einstein made a postulate of "variable mass", > > > which in fact he did not, > > > > So it became variable momentum: relativistically variable, not > > mechanically variable. The postulate count is unchanged. > > Whaaaaat? What do those words even mean? "mechanically variable", The energy of a body is directly proportional to the sqyare of its speed. No limit is assumed in either speed or energy. > "relativistically variable"? Relatavistic effects come in. Limits are assumed on both speed and energy. Quit the posturing. > > > > > and which physicists do not use. They use rest > > > mass or, as it's more commonly labeled, invariant mass, which does not > > > vary at all. So there's one of your postulates that has just puffled > > > into thin air. > > > > Relativistically variable momentum. The postulate count is unchanged. > > Momentum has been variable since Newton defined it. What do you think is > new? Einstein's relativity theory. Quit the posturing. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 08:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsloon$19qm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394334 |
On 9/29/2016 11:03 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > No. I note that you still have not questioned either of the > statements above about incorrectness. > > AFAICT, no physicist has ever questioned the matters behind > them either. Perhaps you would like to explain what you think the "matters behind them" are. Becquerel's discovery of the photoelectric effect: Young's experiment: -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 14:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnustf2.kqk.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394371 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > I note that you still have not questioned either of the > > statements above about incorrectness. > > > > AFAICT, no physicist has ever questioned the matters behind > > them either. > > Perhaps you would like to explain what you think the "matters behind > them" are. Already done. It's part of what you deleted. ----snup----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsltt3$1j3q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394386 |
On 9/30/2016 9:25 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> I note that you still have not questioned either of the >>> statements above about incorrectness. >>> >>> AFAICT, no physicist has ever questioned the matters behind >>> them either. >> >> Perhaps you would like to explain what you think the "matters behind >> them" are. > > Already done. It's part of what you deleted. > > ----snup---- > At this point, let me just comment that you have yet to provide your theory that QUANTITATIVELY matches extant data regarding optical phenomena and electrodynamics. You are claiming, as I understand it, that ALL OTHER THEORIES that have been proposed since the turn of the 20th century should be immediately dropped and considered invalid until your theory is considered and checked against experiment. Have I got that right? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 17:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnut7ee.od5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394391 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > I note that you still have not questioned either of the > > > > statements above about incorrectness. > > > > > > > > AFAICT, no physicist has ever questioned the matters behind > > > > them either. > > > > > > Perhaps you would like to explain what you think the "matters behind > > > them" are. > > > > Already done. It's part of what you deleted. > > At this point, let me just comment You don't need my permission to utter your prejudicial babble. > that you have yet to provide your > theory that QUANTITATIVELY matches extant data regarding optical > phenomena and electrodynamics. > > You are claiming, as I understand it, Your understanding is defective. > that ALL OTHER THEORIES that have > been proposed since the turn of the 20th century should be immediately > dropped and considered invalid until your theory is considered and > checked against experiment. Have I got that right? Not even close. All work (including experimental work) done since Bequerel's time is invalid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 14:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsp4j7$2pg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394405 |
On 9/30/2016 12:15 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> that ALL OTHER THEORIES that have >> > been proposed since the turn of the 20th century should be immediately >> > dropped and considered invalid until your theory is considered and >> > checked against experiment. Have I got that right? > Not even close. > > All work (including experimental work) done since Bequerel's time > is invalid. Aha, so it's even a more extreme claim than I thought. Addressed in a different post in this thread. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 08:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nslpb4$1auj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394334 |
On 9/29/2016 11:03 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam > that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a > wave interfere4nce pattern. Yes. > > Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. They say it is a quantum field. Quantum fields exhibit some wave properties, but they are not waves in the classical sense. > AFAICT, no effort has ever been made to interret it differently. > And *that* is not science. > > Because of that interpretation, the experiment is regarded as > an uneqivocal contradiction of any particle model of light; > ie, it became "knowledge" that no particle model is sustainable. And that's wrong. Physicists today say that light is a quantum field. Quantum fields exhibit some particle properties, but they are not particles in the classical sense. > > But in 1839 Henri Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. > Phyicists correctly interpreted it as incompatible with any > wave model of light, but then they strayed away from science > again. > > Bequerel's discovery contradicts the "knowledge" that no > particle model is sustainable. Instead of taking a long > hard look at that "knowledge" and how they came about it, > they concluded that neither model is sustainable. And in fact, they learned that NOTHING is a classical wave or a classical particle, and that in fact EVERYTHING is a quantum field. The interesting thing about this is that AS WELL AS accounting for all of the wavelike behaviors and all of the particlelike behaviors, including both interference phenomena and photovoltaic phenomena, the quantum field description predicts OTHER behaviors that NEITHER a particle model nor a wave model would predict. These other behaviors, that are (so far) unique to the quantum field model, have been EXQUISITELY confirmed by precision measurements, where the agreement between theory and measurement is to the twelfth decimal place! > > Until they take that long hard look at their *assumption* wrt > the particle model, and confirm or contradict it in a genuinely > unequivoxal matter, *without* recourse to "knowledge" from > later times, their pronouncements have no credibility, and > their work since Bequerel's day is invalid. > > All of it. Bullshit. See above. What you are saying is that you believe that a particle model can explain both the Young effect and the photovoltaic effect, and that NO OTHER MODEL SHOULD EVER EVEN BE CONSIDERED until all possible particle models are firmly ruled out. If you believe that a classical particle model can explain ALL of the extant data, then by all means produce such a theory. If you are saying that you cannot do it, but you believe that scientists COULD do it if they put their minds to it (even though you don't know personally that it could be done), and that then they SHOULD do it until all possibilities in that area are exhausted, then I have one question. WHY??? Why is it not allowed to entertain a THIRD possibility and see if that does as good a job? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 14:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnusupv.kqk.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394373 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam > > that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a > > wave interfere4nce pattern. > > Yes. > > > Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. > > No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles a wave interference pattern, not a wave. ----snip---- > > Because of that interpretation, the experiment is regarded as > > an uneqivocal contradiction of any particle model of light; > > ie, it became "knowledge" that no particle model is sustainable. > > And that's wrong. It's wrong to regard the idea as knowledge, yes. > Physicists today say that light is a quantum field. > Quantum fields exhibit some particle properties, but they are not > particles in the classical sense. IOW, they regard it as "knowledge" that no particle model is sustainable. > > But in 1839 Henri Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. > > Phyicists correctly interpreted it as incompatible with any > > wave model of light, but then they strayed away from science > > again. > > > > Bequerel's discovery contradicts the "knowledge" that no > > particle model is sustainable. Instead of taking a long > > hard look at that "knowledge" and how they came about it, > > they concluded that neither model is sustainable. > > And in fact, they learned that NOTHING is a classical wave > or a classical particle, and that in fact EVERYTHING is a > quantum field. False. They postulated that way. Without examining the "knowledge" contradicted by Bequerel's discovery. ----snip---- > > Until they take that long hard look at their *assumption* wrt > > the particle model, and confirm or contradict it in a genuinely > > unequivoxal matter, *without* recourse to "knowledge" from > > later times, their pronouncements have no credibility, and > > their work since Bequerel's day is invalid. > > > > All of it. > > Bullshit. See above. Bullshit yoursef. I said "invalid", not "wrong". > What you are saying is that you believe that a particle model can > explain both the Young effect and the photovoltaic effect, Yes. > and that NO > OTHER MODEL SHOULD EVER EVEN BE CONSIDERED until all possible particle > models are firmly ruled out. No. > If you believe that a classical particle model can explain ALL of the > extant data, Produced by experiments that the design of which does not assume current theory? Good luck finding some. > then by all means produce such a theory. I did that. So far none of you have done more than pretend to appraise it honestly. You, in particular, have been both dishonest and wilfully stupid about it. ----snip---- > Why is it not allowed to entertain a THIRD possibility and see if that > does as good a job? Quit the posturing. Ask that question of yourself. Or a real physicist if you can find one. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsluce$1jv8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394392 |
On 9/30/2016 9:48 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam >>> that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a >>> wave interfere4nce pattern. >> >> Yes. >> >>> Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. >> >> No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. > > Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles > a wave interference pattern, not a wave. Yes, I know. Hence the proposal was that light was a wave phenomona i the classical sense. It is not. > > ----snip---- > >>> Because of that interpretation, the experiment is regarded as >>> an uneqivocal contradiction of any particle model of light; >>> ie, it became "knowledge" that no particle model is sustainable. >> >> And that's wrong. > > It's wrong to regard the idea as knowledge, yes. You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await this sustainable particle model that is consistent not only with the Young results, but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. > >> Physicists today say that light is a quantum field. >> Quantum fields exhibit some particle properties, but they are not >> particles in the classical sense. > > IOW, they regard it as "knowledge" that no particle model is > sustainable. > >>> But in 1839 Henri Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect. >>> Phyicists correctly interpreted it as incompatible with any >>> wave model of light, but then they strayed away from science >>> again. >>> >>> Bequerel's discovery contradicts the "knowledge" that no >>> particle model is sustainable. Instead of taking a long >>> hard look at that "knowledge" and how they came about it, >>> they concluded that neither model is sustainable. >> >> And in fact, they learned that NOTHING is a classical wave >> or a classical particle, and that in fact EVERYTHING is a >> quantum field. > > False. They postulated that way. Without examining the "knowledge" > contradicted by Bequerel's discovery. I await your model. > > ----snip---- > >>> Until they take that long hard look at their *assumption* wrt >>> the particle model, and confirm or contradict it in a genuinely >>> unequivoxal matter, *without* recourse to "knowledge" from >>> later times, their pronouncements have no credibility, and >>> their work since Bequerel's day is invalid. >>> >>> All of it. >> >> Bullshit. See above. > > Bullshit yoursef. I said "invalid", not "wrong". > >> What you are saying is that you believe that a particle model can >> explain both the Young effect and the photovoltaic effect, > > Yes. > >> and that NO >> OTHER MODEL SHOULD EVER EVEN BE CONSIDERED until all possible particle >> models are firmly ruled out. > > No. > >> If you believe that a classical particle model can explain ALL of the >> extant data, > > Produced by experiments that the design of which does not assume > current theory? Phenomena are phenomena, observed behavior is observed behavior. Behaviors do not emerge because you are EXPECTING them to behave that way. That's not how experiments work. Experiments are THEORY-AGNOSTIC. > > Good luck finding some. > >> then by all means produce such a theory. > > I did that. So far none of you have done more than pretend to appraise > it honestly. You, in particular, have been both dishonest and wilfully > stupid about it. Where exactly have you presented this theory in this conversation. Remember I do not know your whole history on the internet. > > ----snip---- > >> Why is it not allowed to entertain a THIRD possibility and see if that >> does as good a job? > > Quit the posturing. Ask that question of yourself. Or a real physicist > if you can find one. > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nslvs4$1mnb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394393 |
On 9/30/2016 9:55 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await this > sustainable particle model that is consistent not only with the Young > results, but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. Just to follow up on this, what I *suspect* is that your model ONLY attempts to explain observations associated with the photovoltaic effect and Young's interference experiments. I suspect it is therefore your desire to roll back the state of optics to where it was observationally back then, so that your theory can be treated as though the only things it has to explain are the observations that were prevalent then. I suspect you are claiming that all of the observations done SINCE then should be dismissed, under some claim that experiments are tainted by a theoretical context and that those results HAVE NO MEANING if those theories are set aside. This is, if anything, one good reason your approach would be swiftly dismissed. If your theory is generated in this century, then it will only be considered interesting if it is consistent with all the data and observations obtained up to and including this century. This is the onus of ANY new theory, to account for the data known to date, not just the data as known at some distant point in the past. As a simple example of this, consider the Compton effect, which was named after the guy who discovered that it happens in 1923. Note that what is going on in the Compton effect has been happening in the real world since the dawn of time, not since 1923. The fact that it was only observed to be happening in 1923 is irrelevant. Since it is NOW KNOWN that nature has been doing this behavior since time immemorial and is doing it now and was certainly doing it at the time of Young and Becquerel, then your theory must be completely consistent with the QUANTITATIVE behaviors seen in the Compton effect. If you disagree with this and think somehow that the Compton effect (or any of a hundred or so other phenomena discovered in the last century) would simply DISAPPEAR if your new theory were picked up, then I'm afraid there is little that I (or anyone else) will have to say about that with you. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 10:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsm0sl$1opm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394394 |
On 9/30/2016 10:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/30/2016 9:55 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await this >> sustainable particle model that is consistent not only with the Young >> results, but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. > > Just to follow up on this, what I *suspect* is that your model ONLY > attempts to explain observations associated with the photovoltaic effect > and Young's interference experiments. I suspect it is therefore your > desire to roll back the state of optics to where it was observationally > back then, so that your theory can be treated as though the only things > it has to explain are the observations that were prevalent then. I > suspect you are claiming that all of the observations done SINCE then > should be dismissed, under some claim that experiments are tainted by a > theoretical context and that those results HAVE NO MEANING if those > theories are set aside. > > This is, if anything, one good reason your approach would be swiftly > dismissed. > > If your theory is generated in this century, then it will only be > considered interesting if it is consistent with all the data and > observations obtained up to and including this century. This is the onus > of ANY new theory, to account for the data known to date, not just the > data as known at some distant point in the past. > > As a simple example of this, consider the Compton effect, which was > named after the guy who discovered that it happens in 1923. Note that > what is going on in the Compton effect has been happening in the real > world since the dawn of time, not since 1923. The fact that it was only > observed to be happening in 1923 is irrelevant. Since it is NOW KNOWN > that nature has been doing this behavior since time immemorial and is > doing it now and was certainly doing it at the time of Young and > Becquerel, then your theory must be completely consistent with the > QUANTITATIVE behaviors seen in the Compton effect. > > If you disagree with this and think somehow that the Compton effect (or > any of a hundred or so other phenomena discovered in the last century) > would simply DISAPPEAR if your new theory were picked up, then I'm > afraid there is little that I (or anyone else) will have to say about > that with you. > One last comment for now. Let's just consider the following scenario. Suppose that in the year 1900, there are known phenomena A, B, and C. Suppose that after some puzzling over this, there comes a theory X that explains and is full consistent with A, B, and C. That's all well and good but what you try to do in science is to say, well, if X is an accurate accounting for what happens in nature, then we should also see phenomena D and E under certain circumstances. This is called the PREDICTION of the theory X. So then you go look for places where those circumstances happen in nature, or you create them, and then you see if those phenomena D and E happen as well. If they do, then the theory X has not created those phenomena D and E. Rather, D and E have been going on the whole time, but you didn't know to look for them until you had the theory X. Repeating, D and E are not reliant on the theory any more than A, B, and C are. A, B, C, D, and E are all things that happen in nature all the time. It's just that people made a good guess about X knowing just the pieces A, B, and C, but the theory also explained AHEAD OF TIME how it is that D and E also happen. It's the predictive power that give you confidence that X is right. And then you go on further and check out other predictions that say F and G happen, and when you look, sure enough, F and G have been happening in nature the whole time even if you were unaware of them. So now you have a compelling theory X that not only accounts for A, B, and C that gave rise to the idea, but also D, E, F, and G; and this is a good indicator that X is a good theory. Now along come someone in 2000 who says, "Hold on. I have another theory Y that explains A, B, and C." That's all well and good, but we now know that D, E, F, and G also happen. So this theory Y in the year 2000 not only has to account for A, B, and C, but in fact has to be consistent with all of the results A-G, because that is now the set of observations about nature we have in hand. That is, a better theory ALWAYS has to deal with the known observations about nature that are currently know. What USUALLY happens is that there is a new observation H that is inconsistent with X. Theory X says that H cannot happen but it does. Then what happens is that there is a new theory Z that gets figured out that may in fact be very similar to X but different in some key ways that make it compatible with all observations A-H. And once again, the way to feel really good about Z is to see if it makes any predictions about yet-unobserved phenomena I and J, which have been really going on the whole time in nature, just unnoticed by us. What is not cool is to say, "To hell with D-H, those observations are irrelevant or invalid. My theory Y only has to account for A, B, and C to be treated seriously." -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 17:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnut97n.od5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394394 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. ----snip---- > Just to follow up on this, what I *suspect* is that your model > ONLY attempts to explain observations associated with the > photovoltaic effect and Young's interference experiments. Your suspicion is incorrect. > I suspect it is therefore your desire to roll back the state > of optics to where it was observationally back then, Not optics, physics. > so that your theory can be treated as though the only things it > has to explain are the observations that were prevalent then. So that physics van proceed from that point scientifically. > I suspect you are claiming that all of the observations done > SINCE then should be dismissed, Reexamined. > under some claim that experiments are tainted by a theoretical > context It's no mere claim. > and that those results HAVE NO MEANING if those theories are > set aside. No, they must be reexamined. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 17:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnut8f5.od5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394393 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam > > > > that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a > > > > wave interfere4nce pattern. > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. > > > > > > No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. > > > > Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles > > a wave interference pattern, not a wave. > > Yes, I know. Hence the proposal was that light was a wave phenomona > in the classical sense. That's not what you said above. Read it again: "Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave". That, as a response to "Physicists unanimously interpret it [as] *being* what it resembless" is irrelevant twaddle. ----snip---- > You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await this > sustainable particle model that is consistent not only with the Young > results, Yoou've already seen it (or so you have claimed in the past). > but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. Good luck sorting out which of that stuff is valid. ----snip---- > > > If you believe that a classical particle model can explain ALL of the > > > extant data, > > > > Produced by experiments that the design of which does not assume > > current theory? Correction: "the design and interpretation of which do not assume current theory". > Phenomena are phenomena, observed behavior is observed behavior. > Behaviors do not emerge because you are EXPECTING them to behave that > way. That's not how experiments work. Experiments are THEORY-AGNOSTIC. Bullshit. > > Good luck finding some. > > > > > then by all means produce such a theory. > > > > I did that. So far none of you have done more than pretend to appraise > > it honestly. You, in particular, have been both dishonest and wilfully > > stupid about it. > > Where exactly have you presented this theory in this conversation. Not this conversation, an earlier one. In this newsgroup. > Remember I do not know your whole history on the internet. You should know your own,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 08:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstm50$fap$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394410 |
On 9/30/2016 12:33 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam >>>>> that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a >>>>> wave interfere4nce pattern. >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. >>>> >>>> No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. >>> >>> Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles >>> a wave interference pattern, not a wave. >> >> Yes, I know. Hence the proposal was that light was a wave phenomona >> in the classical sense. In Young's day, along with Huygens. > > That's not what you said above. Read it again: "Physicists do NOT say > that light is a wave". That's a present tense statement. Not what WAS said in the early 19th century. > > That, as a response to "Physicists unanimously interpret it [as] > *being* what it resembless" is irrelevant twaddle. > > ----snip---- > >> You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await this >> sustainable particle model that is consistent not only with the Young >> results, > > Yoou've already seen it (or so you have claimed in the past). Maybe. I don't remember it. > >> but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. > > Good luck sorting out which of that stuff is valid. Not a good idea to cherry pick results. > > ----snip---- > >>>> If you believe that a classical particle model can explain ALL of the >>>> extant data, >>> >>> Produced by experiments that the design of which does not assume >>> current theory? > > Correction: "the design and interpretation of which do not assume > current theory". Correct. > >> Phenomena are phenomena, observed behavior is observed behavior. >> Behaviors do not emerge because you are EXPECTING them to behave that >> way. That's not how experiments work. Experiments are THEORY-AGNOSTIC. > > Bullshit. Physicists disagree. > >>> Good luck finding some. >>> >>>> then by all means produce such a theory. >>> >>> I did that. So far none of you have done more than pretend to appraise >>> it honestly. You, in particular, have been both dishonest and wilfully >>> stupid about it. >> >> Where exactly have you presented this theory in this conversation. > > Not this conversation, an earlier one. In this newsgroup. When? Date range? > >> Remember I do not know your whole history on the internet. > > You should know your own, > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv4q43.1c0.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394677 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam > > > > > > that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a > > > > > > wave interfere4nce pattern. > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. > > > > > > > > > > No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. > > > > > > > > Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles > > > > a wave interference pattern, not a wave. > > > > > > Yes, I know. Hence the proposal was that light was a wave phenomona > > > in the classical sense. I know that. Pay attention to what I write: physicists unanimously interpret that pattern as being what it seems. They made no effort to canvas other possibilities. > In Young's day, along with Huygens. Yes. > > That's not what you said above. Read it again: "Physicists do NOT say > > that light is a wave". > > That's a present tense statement. Not what WAS said in the early 19th > century. Okay, then. Why the straw man? > > That, as a response to "Physicists unanimously interpret it [as] > > *being* what it resembless" is irrelevant twaddle. And again, why the straw man? > > > You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await > > > this sustainable particle model that is consistent not only > > > with the Young results, > > > > Yoou've already seen it (or so you have claimed in the past). > > Maybe. I don't remember it. > > > > but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. > > > > Good luck sorting out which of that stuff is valid. > > Not a good idea to cherry pick results. That's what you and the physicists do. *I* said "valid". > > > > > If you believe that a classical particle model can explain > > > > > ALL of the extant data, > > > > > > > > Produced by experiments that the design of which does not assume > > > > current theory? > > > > Correction: "the design and interpretation of which do not assume > > current theory". > > Correct. > > > > Phenomena are phenomena, observed behavior is observed behavior. > > > Behaviors do not emerge because you are EXPECTING them to behave that > > > way. That's not how experiments work. Experiments are THEORY-AGNOSTIC. > > > > Bullshit. > > Physicists disagree. Those physicists are wrong: both the design and the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley measurements of light speed assume wave behaviour. > > > > Good luck finding some. > > > > > > > > > then by all means produce such a theory. > > > > > > > > I did that. So far none of you have done more than pretend to appraise > > > > it honestly. You, in particular, have been both dishonest and wilfully > > > > stupid about it. > > > > > > Where exactly have you presented this theory in this conversation. > > > > Not this conversation, an earlier one. In this newsgroup. > > When? Date range? I first posted a link to a version of the theory in this group in message <slrnlq330s.rl3.champ@woden.valhalla.oz>, dated 2014/06/17. You first claimed to have read (some of) it in message <lok1a1$57i$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/27. (I see you haven't been keeping track of Piggy's rabid ranting. Well, you gaven't missed anythomg worthwhile.) ----snup----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 12:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsu4jv$1ag8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394691 |
On 10/3/2016 9:17 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam >>>>>>> that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a >>>>>>> wave interfere4nce pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. >>>>>> >>>>>> No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. >>>>> >>>>> Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles >>>>> a wave interference pattern, not a wave. >>>> >>>> Yes, I know. Hence the proposal was that light was a wave phenomona >>>> in the classical sense. > > I know that. Pay attention to what I write: physicists unanimously > interpret that pattern as being what it seems. They made no effort > to canvas other possibilities. > >> In Young's day, along with Huygens. > > Yes. > >>> That's not what you said above. Read it again: "Physicists do NOT say >>> that light is a wave". >> >> That's a present tense statement. Not what WAS said in the early 19th >> century. > > Okay, then. Why the straw man? It's not a straw man. It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT TODAY say light is a wave. If you wish to dwell in the past, that's up to you. > >>> That, as a response to "Physicists unanimously interpret it [as] >>> *being* what it resembless" is irrelevant twaddle. > > And again, why the straw man? > >>>> You are claiming that a particle model IS sustainable. I await >>>> this sustainable particle model that is consistent not only >>>> with the Young results, >>> >>> Yoou've already seen it (or so you have claimed in the past). >> >> Maybe. I don't remember it. >> >>>> but ALL optical and electrodynamic observations made since then. >>> >>> Good luck sorting out which of that stuff is valid. >> >> Not a good idea to cherry pick results. > > That's what you and the physicists do. > *I* said "valid". Where "validity" is determined by WHOM? You? > >>>>>> If you believe that a classical particle model can explain >>>>>> ALL of the extant data, >>>>> >>>>> Produced by experiments that the design of which does not assume >>>>> current theory? >>> >>> Correction: "the design and interpretation of which do not assume >>> current theory". >> >> Correct. >> >>>> Phenomena are phenomena, observed behavior is observed behavior. >>>> Behaviors do not emerge because you are EXPECTING them to behave that >>>> way. That's not how experiments work. Experiments are THEORY-AGNOSTIC. >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >> Physicists disagree. > > Those physicists are wrong: both the design and the interpretation of > the Michelson-Morley measurements of light speed assume wave behaviour. Prove that statement. > >>>>> Good luck finding some. >>>>> >>>>>> then by all means produce such a theory. >>>>> >>>>> I did that. So far none of you have done more than pretend to appraise >>>>> it honestly. You, in particular, have been both dishonest and wilfully >>>>> stupid about it. >>>> >>>> Where exactly have you presented this theory in this conversation. >>> >>> Not this conversation, an earlier one. In this newsgroup. >> >> When? Date range? > > I first posted a link to a version of the theory in this group in message > <slrnlq330s.rl3.champ@woden.valhalla.oz>, dated 2014/06/17. > You first claimed to have read (some of) it in message > <lok1a1$57i$1@speranza.aioe.org>, dated 2014/06/27. > > (I see you haven't been keeping track of Piggy's rabid ranting. > Well, you gaven't missed anythomg worthwhile.) > > ----snup---- > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 20:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5h40.bhs.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394721 |
Odd Bodkin wrote in <nsu4jv$1ag8$3@gioia.aioe.org>: > On 10/3/2016 9:17 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is observed that the pattern of light detected from a beam > > > > > > > > that has passed through a single or double slit resembles a > > > > > > > > wave interfere4nce pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Physicists unanimously interpret it *being* what it resembles. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. Physicists do NOT say that light is a wave. > > > > > > > > > > > > Try reading with some attention. I said that the pattern resembles > > > > > > a wave interference pattern, not a wave. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I know. Hence the proposal was that light was a wave phenomona > > > > > in the classical sense. > > > > I know that. Pay attention to what I write: physicists unanimously > > interpret that pattern as being what it seems. They made no effort > > to canvas other possibilities. > > > > > In Young's day, along with Huygens. > > > > Yes. > > > > > > That's not what you said above. Read it again: "Physicists do NOT say > > > > that light is a wave". > > > > > > That's a present tense statement. Not what WAS said in the early 19th > > > century. > > > > Okay, then. Why the straw man? > > It's not a straw man. Wrong. It has nothing to do with what I said, and it puts up a false position for you to attavk. > It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT > TODAY say light is a wave. There's your false position. > If you wish to dwell in the past, that's up > to you. And there's y6our attavk on it. ----snip---- > > > > Good luck sorting out which of that stuff is valid. > > > > > > Not a good idea to cherry pick results. > > > > That's what you and the physicists do. > > *I* said "valid". > > Where "validity" is determined by WHOM? You? Yep. You lot are incapable of it. ----snip---- > > > > > Phenomena are phenomena, observed behavior is observed behavior. > > > > > Behaviors do not emerge because you are EXPECTING them to behave that > > > > > way. That's not how experiments work. Experiments are THEORY-AGNOSTIC. > > > > > > > > Bullshit. > > > > > > Physicists disagree. > > > > Those physicists are wrong: both the design and the interpretation of > > the Michelson-Morley measurements of light speed assume wave behaviour. > > Prove that statement. For the experiment to be free of the assumption of wabe behaciour, it must provide for testing and consideration of the alternative. The earth's solar orbita; speed is about 30 km/s, yet there is no provision, anywhere in either the design or the interpretation, for considering the effects of light particles impacting a moving reflector. ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsuh3o$3qi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394746 |
On 10/3/2016 3:50 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> It is a PRESENT-DAY fact that physicist DO NOT >> > TODAY say light is a wave. > There's your false position. > You are full of it. See another post about quantum field theory and how it applies to light. If you are unaware of what quantum fields are, that is your fault. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web