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 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 08:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nslqqp$1dfl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394335 |
On 9/29/2016 11:21 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---- > > >>>> What are some of the others you think have been piled up? >>> >>> Oh, for fuck's sake. Who can keep track of the febrile meanderings >>> that pass for theory? >> >> YOU can, if you'd bother to read. > > You can't. Why expect Me to dop it. > >>> Light speed as a constant within a given medium. >> >> It's not. > > I know. > >> Doesn't exist as a postulate. > > Bullshit. Then cite. > >>> Light speed as a limit (a different one in every medium). >> >> Verified by experiment. > > Bullshit Particle accelerators SHOULD raise particles above c in a vacuum. Cerenkov radiation would not exist if it were not for that speed limit. Time dilation is a DIRECT confirmation of this speed limit. . > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> Light speed as inversely proportional to the density of the medium. >> >> Such a law doesn't exist. > > Snell's Law. That's not what Snell's law says. You have confused index of refraction with density. If you're going to quote a supposed postulate, then at least get it right. Second, you might want to make a distinction between an empirical rule and a postulate. You can refer perhaps to your high school science book. As another example, Ohm's law is not a postulate. > >>> The curvilinear universe. >> >> Verified by experiment. > > > Bullshit. Oh dear, where to start here. Deflection of light by astronomical bodies. Gravitational doppler effect. Frame dragging in Gravity Probe B. Einstein ring images of distant galaxies. > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> Mass as distorting the contimuum. >> >> Verified by experiment. > > Nullshit. > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> Time as a dimension of the continuum. >> >> >> Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? >> >> >>> Time dilation. >> >> Verified by experiment. > > Bullshit. I'm sensing a pattern here. Are you saying there is no evidence that exactly matches the predictions of the theories, or are you saying that verification by experiment would imply to you that all other possibilities for an alternate explanation have been ruled out? > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> Red shift as a measure of distance. >> >> Verified by experiment. > > > Bullshit. > >> Is this a problem? >> >> >>> The expanding universe. >> >> Verified by experiment. > > Bulshit. > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> The big bang. >> >> Verified by experiment. > > Bullshit. > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). >> >> That's a hypothesis, not a postulate. > > Hypothesis *is* postulation. Quit quibbling. Uh, no. Look at your high school textbook. > >> It's not panning out so well. So? > > I suppose I can take it off the list. > > Let's replace it with one I forgot to include: > > Strong and Weak nuclear forces. And what do you propose instead? > >>> Other universes (FYI that's a contradiction in terms). >> >> This is why meanings of words get altered or refined. Your >> understanding of "universe" as meaning "the collection of >> everything that exists" is NOT the meaning of the word as >> physicists use it. > > So who's the lazy fuck who couldn't ne vothered coining > amk unambiguous word? Sorry, but this happens all the time. The meaning of words depends on context. Sometimes physicists coin words like chromodynamics and quark and meson. Sometimes they have a new meaning for old words like color and spin and particle. When PHYSICISTS use these words, they understand the context and so they understand what meaning to pluck out. Let me explain something to you. Physicists DO NOT OWE YOU terminology that is unambiguous enough that you cannot possibly be confused. They only owe EACH OTHER an unambiguous meaning given by the context. Those who are interested in following what they are saying are obligated to learn the meanings of those terms as they are using them. > >> Are you interested in the meaning of the word as they use it, > > Nope. The postulate is nonsense. And you know this HOW? Because of the meaning of the word? > >> or are you just going to dismiss that meaning as "just not >> acceptable"? > > Nope. The postulate isa no9nsense. > >>> Tachyons and the tachyon "universe". >> >> That's a hypothesis. So? > > Hypothises *is* postulation. Quit the posruring. > >>> Particle entanglement (Schroedinger's cat) >> >> Verified by experiment. > > Bullshit. > >> Is this a problem? >> >>> Dark matter. >> >> That's a hypothesis. So? > > Hypothises *is* postulation. Quit the posruring. > >>> Dark energy. >> >> That's a hypothesis. So? > > Hypothises *is* postulation. Quit the posruring. > >>> >>> Blah, blah, blah ..... >>> >>>>> I've had enough of pseudo-science. >>>> >>>> What do you think "pseudo-science" means? >>> >>> In part: processes that are alleged to be science but in fact >>> do not follow scientifically valid procedures/methodology. >> >> OK, and so which of the above did not follow scientifically valid >> procedures/methodology? And what in particular was the lapse? > > Take your pick. *All* of the work done since Bequerel's day is > invalid, because it makes the unconfirmed assumption that the > pattern of light produced by Young's experiment *is* the wave > pattern it resenbles. > > And the "confirmations" you assert above are no such thing > because the experiments and the interpretations are all > based on the same assumption. > > ----sniop---- > > Med > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnut4u5.od5.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394376 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). ----snip---- > > > It's not panning out so well. So? > > > > I suppose I can take it off the list. > > > > Let's replace it with one I forgot to include: > > > > Strong and Weak nuclear forces. > > And what do you propose instead? Once again you confirm either that one or the other of your comprehension and your concentration is substandard, or that your assertion of having read my theory is a lie. My alternative is shown in one of the experiments proposed in the third section, "Syggestions for Research". Perhaps you can bother yourself enough to make your assertion true? http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html ----snip---- > > *All* of the work done since Bequerel's day is > > invalid, because it makes the unconfirmed assumption that the > > pattern of light produced by Young's experiment *is* the wave > > pattern it resenbles. > > > > And the "confirmations" you assert above are no such thing > > because the experiments and the interpretations are all > > based on the same assumption.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 12:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsm75b$4oe$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394399 |
On 9/30/2016 11:33 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). > > ----snip---- > >>>> It's not panning out so well. So? >>> >>> I suppose I can take it off the list. >>> >>> Let's replace it with one I forgot to include: >>> >>> Strong and Weak nuclear forces. >> >> And what do you propose instead? > > Once again you confirm either that one or the other of your > comprehension and your concentration is substandard, or that > your assertion of having read my theory is a lie. I have never said, AFAIK, that I have read your theory. Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else? > > My alternative is shown in one of the experiments proposed > in the third section, "Syggestions for Research". > > Perhaps you can bother yourself enough to make your assertion true? > > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html Now that you HAVE provided your theory (it wasn't hard, three short one-pagers), allow me to make a few observations about it. Let me be clear that I see a LOT of problems with it, but I'm choosing to only comment on a few because that's sufficient to make the point. Any one of the problems that I have cited here would be sufficient for any physicist to dismiss the work. 1. Errors of historical record. Einstein made no "wave packet model" of matter as part of special relativity. He did mention a wave packet model of light in another paper completely unrelated to special relativity. This kind of error will be seen by physicists that you don't know what you're talking about. 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with measurements. I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict the mass of a green-light photon, for example. In fact, because you do not specify the relation between I and m for a photon, you do not even show it is possible to predict the mass of a green-light photon. It would have been extremely worth your while to do this calculation and come up with a number for the mass of a green-light photon because the upper limit of green-light photon mass has been measured, and so you showing compatibility of your theory with experimental results is a glaring hole. 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your experimental proposals will show that the current models are a failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do not do that. For example, your proposed experiment with charged balloons and a piece of paper between them does not show that the predictions of weak and strong forces do not match experiment. What you showed is that attraction can happen between like-signed objects, which is KNOWN for any object with an induced polarization. (This induced polarization is in fact discussed in basic books.) But what you have NOT explained is not only that protons attract each other (and neutrons as well), but they do so with a force about a million times larger than the electrostatic repulsion -- that is measured, by the way. If your experiment with the balloons and the piece of paper had resulted in the two balloons smashing together with such force that you could not pry them apart with anything less than a crowbar, then you might be onto something. 4. Lack of grasp of basic concepts. In your Particle Theory of Matter, you make a claim that there is a factor in the gravitational force that has a variable impact energy factor, which you say "varies with the velocity components of the potential energy between them". Potential energy, as that is understood by physicists, does not have velocity components of any kind. Thus this statement, which includes an important new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist. Along with this you make a footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass" which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread. As I said, this is just four, any of which would be grounds for balling up the printout and tossing it in the can. In the 10 minutes that it took to read the three pages, I counted 20-ish such egregious problems, even on first blush. Believe me, if you have given these papers to someone to look at them, they HAVE given it all the attention it warrants. It's fine for you to propose an alternate theory. But before you are going to get any serious attention to it, you're going to have to fix a LOT of problems with what you've produced so far. > > ----snip---- > >>> *All* of the work done since Bequerel's day is >>> invalid, because it makes the unconfirmed assumption that the >>> pattern of light produced by Young's experiment *is* the wave >>> pattern it resenbles. >>> >>> And the "confirmations" you assert above are no such thing >>> because the experiments and the interpretations are all >>> based on the same assumption. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuvqbs.lc2.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394407 |
Odd Bodkin wrote in <nsm75b$4oe$1@gioia.aioe.org>:
> On 9/30/2016 11:33 AM, Ned Latham wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > > > The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory).
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > > It's not panning out so well. So?
> > > >
> > > > I suppose I can take it off the list.
> > > >
> > > > Let's replace it with one I forgot to include:
> > > >
> > > > Strong and Weak nuclear forces.
> > >
> > > And what do you propose instead?
> >
> > Once again you confirm either that one or the other of your
> > comprehension and your concentration is substandard, or that
> > your assertion of having read my theory is a lie.
>
> I have never said, AFAIK, that I have read your theory.
AFAIK? You're hedging your bets on your own memory?
Se your message <lok1a1$57i$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
dated 2014/06/27.
> Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else?
Let's hope for the world's sake that there's only one of you.
> > My alternative is shown in one of the experiments proposed
> > in the third section, "Syggestions for Research".
> >
> > Perhaps you can bother yourself enough to make your assertion true?
> >
> > http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html
>
> Now that you HAVE provided your theory (it wasn't hard, three short
> one-pagers), allow me to make a few observations about it. Let me be
> clear that I see a LOT of problems with it, but I'm choosing to only
> comment on a few because that's sufficient to make the point. Any one of
> the problems that I have cited here would be sufficient for any
> physicist to dismiss the work.
>
> 1. Errors of historical record. Einstein made no "wave packet model" of
> matter as part of special relativity.
I didn't say he did, fuckwit. Learn to read English.
> He did mention a wave packet model
> of light in another paper completely unrelated to special relativity.
> This kind of error will be seen by physicists that you don't know what
> you're talking about.
Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru.
> 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't
> do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with
> measurements.
There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments.
> I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship
> between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out
> in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not
> give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict
> the mass of a green-light photon, for example.
Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one.
Read it again, you lying maggot:
Mass
Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + I#2), from which the
photon's mass will be calculable if:
1 The energy, speed and either frequency or
wavelength of photons from a source are measured,
allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #;
2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf
replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the
difference in speed from the value assumed in
Planck's Law;
3 The correct assumptions are made
about the shape and density of the
photon, allowing the correct formula to
be substituted for I and the equation
rearranged to solve for m.
There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet.
----snip----
In fact, because you
> do not specify the relation between I and m for a photon, you do not even show
> it is possible to predict the mass of a green-light photon. It would
> have been extremely worth your while to do this calculation and come up
> with a number for the mass of a green-light photon because the upper
> limit of green-light photon mass has been measured, and so you showing
> compatibility of your theory with experimental results is a glaring hole.
>
> 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your
> experimental proposals will show that the current models are a
> failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do
> not do that.
I claim A but I do not do that?
You wanna restate that in English, Bubba?
> For example, your proposed experiment with charged balloons and a piece
> of paper between them does not show that the predictions of weak and
> strong forces do not match experiment.
I make no such asserion, you lying maggot.
> What you showed is that
> attraction can happen between like-signed objects, which is KNOWN for
> any object with an induced polarization.
Oh, goody.
> (This induced polarization is
> in fact discussed in basic books.) But what you have NOT explained is
> not only that protons attract each other (and neutrons as well), but
> they do so with a force about a million times larger than the
> electrostatic repulsion -- that is measured, by the way.
Bullshit.
----snip----
> 4. Lack of grasp of basic concepts. In your Particle Theory of Matter,
> you make a claim that there is a factor in the gravitational force that
> has a variable impact energy factor, which you say "varies with the
> velocity components of the potential energy between them". Potential
> energy, as that is understood by physicists, does not have velocity
> components of any kind.
Oh, use your scone for fuck's sake.
See the term "impact energy"? E = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2)
Quit the quibbling.
----snip----
> Thus this statement, which includes an important
> new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist.
To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist.
> Along with this you make a
> footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass"
> which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out
> elsewhere in this thread.
Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of
Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. Invariant mass means that the
centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the
distance between them and with no other factor. The
relativistic increase in Mercury's momrntum, however, means
that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its
preihelion will regress, not precess.
> As I said, this is just four,
Failed attempts, Bubba. Try to lift your game.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 15:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsp7ls$6cr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394495 |
On 10/1/2016 11:51 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote in <nsm75b$4oe$1@gioia.aioe.org>: >> On 9/30/2016 11:33 AM, Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>>>>> The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>>>> It's not panning out so well. So? >>>>> >>>>> I suppose I can take it off the list. >>>>> >>>>> Let's replace it with one I forgot to include: >>>>> >>>>> Strong and Weak nuclear forces. >>>> >>>> And what do you propose instead? >>> >>> Once again you confirm either that one or the other of your >>> comprehension and your concentration is substandard, or that >>> your assertion of having read my theory is a lie. >> >> I have never said, AFAIK, that I have read your theory. > > AFAIK? You're hedging your bets on your own memory? > Se your message <lok1a1$57i$1@speranza.aioe.org>, > dated 2014/06/27. Ah, yes, this explains it. At that time you had a different web page up, which is no longer available. The context of that message is this: ======================================================= I went back and found this, which I presume that you are calling your "work". http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/ModellingLight/index.html Could you please explain with calculations, using your model, any of the following phenomena? 1. The pattern of maxima and minima (and at what angles they should appear) for light of wavelength 490 nm entering a single slit of width 1200 nm. 2. The Balmer series of wavelengths from excited hydrogen. 3. The energy spectrum of electrons released by impact of light of wavelength 420 nm on an aluminum surface. 4. The opening angle of two photons from the decay of a 15 GeV neutral pion. All of these are calculable from the prevailing model of light and quantum mechanics. ================================================= I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since revision of your work. Why not? > >> Are you sure you aren't confusing me with someone else? > > Let's hope for the world's sake that there's only one of you. > >>> My alternative is shown in one of the experiments proposed >>> in the third section, "Syggestions for Research". >>> >>> Perhaps you can bother yourself enough to make your assertion true? >>> >>> http://www.users.on.net/~nedlatham/Science/Physics/index.html >> >> Now that you HAVE provided your theory (it wasn't hard, three short >> one-pagers), allow me to make a few observations about it. Let me be >> clear that I see a LOT of problems with it, but I'm choosing to only >> comment on a few because that's sufficient to make the point. Any one of >> the problems that I have cited here would be sufficient for any >> physicist to dismiss the work. >> >> 1. Errors of historical record. Einstein made no "wave packet model" of >> matter as part of special relativity. > > I didn't say he did, fuckwit. Learn to read English. Here's from your website, entitled The Particle Theory of Matter: ======================================================== "Then in the twentieth centiry, Albert Einstein provided one: he put forward his theory of Special Relativity, with its postulated “wave packet” model." ====================================================== > >> He did mention a wave packet model >> of light in another paper completely unrelated to special relativity. >> This kind of error will be seen by physicists that you don't know what >> you're talking about. > > Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru. They do if it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs like that. If you want physicists to discount them and move on, perhaps you should delete them from your "work", because they are riddled with errors. > >> 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't >> do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with >> measurements. > > There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments. "baliflu...experments"? > >> I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship >> between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out >> in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not >> give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict >> the mass of a green-light photon, for example. > > Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one. > Read it again, you lying maggot: > > Mass > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + I#2), from which the > photon's mass will be calculable if: > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or > wavelength of photons from a source are measured, > allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #; > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf > replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the > difference in speed from the value assumed in > Planck's Law; > 3 The correct assumptions are made > about the shape and density of the > photon, allowing the correct formula to > be substituted for I and the equation > rearranged to solve for m. > > There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet. You don't think the energy, speed, and frequency have been measured? And you're the only person I know of that is claiming that a photon has a value of I (or for that matter a shape and density). So if not you providing the formula for I and the shape and the density, then who? > > ----snip---- > > In fact, because you >> do not specify the relation between I and m for a photon, you do not even show >> it is possible to predict the mass of a green-light photon. It would >> have been extremely worth your while to do this calculation and come up >> with a number for the mass of a green-light photon because the upper >> limit of green-light photon mass has been measured, and so you showing >> compatibility of your theory with experimental results is a glaring hole. Note that you STILL don't have a single quantitative prediction from your theory. Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has been summarily ignored? >> >> 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your >> experimental proposals will show that the current models are a >> failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do >> not do that. > > I claim A but I do not do that? > > You wanna restate that in English, Bubba? Here: You claim that you have presented experimental proposals that will show that the current models are a failure -- that is, they do not agree with experiment -- but you have in fact not done that. > >> For example, your proposed experiment with charged balloons and a piece >> of paper between them does not show that the predictions of weak and >> strong forces do not match experiment. > > I make no such asserion, you lying maggot. > >> What you showed is that >> attraction can happen between like-signed objects, which is KNOWN for >> any object with an induced polarization. > > Oh, goody. > >> (This induced polarization is >> in fact discussed in basic books.) But what you have NOT explained is >> not only that protons attract each other (and neutrons as well), but >> they do so with a force about a million times larger than the >> electrostatic repulsion -- that is measured, by the way. > > Bullshit. You didn't know about this factor of a million?? Where the fuck have you been? > > ----snip---- > >> 4. Lack of grasp of basic concepts. In your Particle Theory of Matter, >> you make a claim that there is a factor in the gravitational force that >> has a variable impact energy factor, which you say "varies with the >> velocity components of the potential energy between them". Potential >> energy, as that is understood by physicists, does not have velocity >> components of any kind. > > Oh, use your scone for fuck's sake. > See the term "impact energy"? E = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2) If it's E then why do you call it v in the gravity formula? Also note that ½(mv^2 + Iw^2) has absolutely nothing to do with potential energy, let alone "velocity components of the potential energy". It's GOBBLEDYGOOK. > > Quit the quibbling. > > ----snip---- > >> Thus this statement, which includes an important >> new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist. > > To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist. Cite one physicist who declares it's NOT gobbledygook. > >> Along with this you make a >> footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass" >> which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out >> elsewhere in this thread. > > Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of > Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. What on earth are you talking about? Where in the HELL do you think "variable mass" appears ANYWHERE in the expressions for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury? Go ahead and pull out the formulas from any source on GR you'd like, and then point to the place where you see mention of variable mass or the formula you wrote for variable mass. > Invariant mass means that the > centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the > distance between them and with no other factor. The > relativistic increase in Mercury's momrntum, however, means > that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its > preihelion will regress, not precess. > >> As I said, this is just four, > > Failed attempts, Bubba. Try to lift your game. > I don't have to convince YOU that there's a problem with your work. I'm just offering explanations for why your work has been ignored to date. If you honestly don't believe any of these things are issues that you have to fix, that's up to you. I will bet that if you don't fix them, you will continue to get exactly the same notice from physicists that you've gotten to date. Your move, Bubba. I've got no skin in the game. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv0r2c.6lg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394528 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > > > Strong and Weak nuclear forces. > > > > > > > > > > And what do you propose instead? > > > > > > > > Once again you confirm either that one or the other of your > > > > comprehension and your concentration is substandard, or that > > > > your assertion of having read my theory is a lie. > > > > > > I have never said, AFAIK, that I have read your theory. > > > > AFAIK? You're hedging your bets on your own memory? > > Se your message <lok1a1$57i$1@speranza.aioe.org>, > > dated 2014/06/27. > > Ah, yes, this explains it. At that time you had a different > web page up, which is no longer available. So do you now know the meaning of the word "update"? > The context of > that message is this: It's irrelevant, except as a record of your mendacity. ----snip---- > I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since > revision of your work. Why not? You've been told the reason for that repeatedly. Quit the posturing. > > > Now that you HAVE provided your theory (it wasn't hard, three short > > > one-pagers), Yes, marvellously elegant, n'est ce pas? > > > allow me to make a few observations about it. Let me be > > > clear that I see a LOT of problems with it, but I'm choosing to only > > > comment on a few because that's sufficient to make the point. Any one > > > of the problems that I have cited here would be sufficient for any > > > physicist to dismiss the work. > > > > > > 1. Errors of historical record. Einstein made no "wave packet model" of > > > matter as part of special relativity. > > > > I didn't say he did, fuckwit. Learn to read English. > > Here's from your website, entitled The Particle Theory of Matter: >======================================================== > "Then in the twentieth centiry, Albert Einstein provided one: he put > forward his theory of Special Relativity, with its postulated ?wave > packet? model." >====================================================== Shit, you're right. I thought I'd writtem "his" not "its". That text is now updated again, with that passage reworded to make it clearer. And I apologise for that instance of calling you a fucjwit. > > > He did mention a wave packet model > > > of light in another paper completely unrelated to special > > > relativity. This kind of error will be seen by physicists > > > that you don't know what you're talking about. > > > > Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru. > > They do if it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. I said "affect the theory". I did not say "affect perceptions of the theory. > I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs > like that. Everyone does. You did. > If you want physicists to discount them and move on, > perhaps you should delete them from your "work", I've corrected the one error. > because they are riddled with errors. Bullshit. > > > 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't > > > do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with > > > measurements. > > > > There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments. > > "baliflu...experments"? Typo. I'm not a touch typist and I have bad eyesight, which affects both my typing and my proofreading. The word I intended is "validly". > > > I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship > > > between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out > > > in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not > > > give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict > > > the mass of a green-light photon, for example. > > > > Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one. > > Read it again, you lying maggot: > > > > Mass > > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle > > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + I#2), from which the > > photon's mass will be calculable if: > > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or > > wavelength of photons from a source are measured, > > allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #; > > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf > > replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the > > difference in speed from the value assumed in > > Planck's Law; > > 3 The correct assumptions are made > > about the shape and density of the > > photon, allowing the correct formula to > > be substituted for I and the equation > > rearranged to solve for m. > > > > There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet. > > You don't think the energy, speed, and frequency have been measured? Correct. > And you're the only person I know of that is claiming that a photon has > a value of I In *this* theory the photon is a particle. I is the synbol for moment of inertia. > (or for that matter a shape and density). In this theory a particle is a lump of matter. Lumps of matter have shape, and they have density. > So if not you > providing the formula for I and the shape and the density, then who? See 3. > > > In fact, because you do not specify the relation between > > > I and m for a photon, you do not even show it is possible > > > to predict the mass of a green-light photon. ----blaf blag snipped---- > Note that you STILL don't have a single quantitative prediction > from your theory. False. However there are none re the mass of particles. BFD. As I said, data are not yet available for them. > Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has > been summarily ignored? How would anyone who's ignored it know that those calculations haven't been made? > > > > > > 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your > > > experimental proposals will show that the current models are a > > > failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do > > > not do that. > > > > I claim A but I do not do that? > > > > You wanna restate that in English, Bubba? > > Here: You claim that you have presented experimental proposals that will > show that the current models are a failure -- that is, they do not agree > with experiment Show me that claim. > -- but you have in fact not done that. Done WHAT? > > > For example, your proposed experiment with charged balloons and a piece > > > of paper between them does not show that the predictions of weak and > > > strong forces do not match experiment. > > > > I make no such asserion, you lying maggot. > > > > > What you showed is that > > > attraction can happen between like-signed objects, which is KNOWN for > > > any object with an induced polarization. > > > > Oh, goody. > > > > > (This induced polarization is > > > in fact discussed in basic books.) But what you have NOT explained is > > > not only that protons attract each other (and neutrons as well), but > > > they do so with a force about a million times larger than the > > > electrostatic repulsion -- that is measured, by the way. > > > > Bullshit. > > You didn't know about this factor of a million?? I don't even know that the attractive force you assert has been measured. I'm sure you and the physicists *think* it's been measured. Just as I'm sure that you regard your assumptions as knowledge. > Where the fuck have you been? Watching the circus you call physics. > > > 4. Lack of grasp of basic concepts. In your Particle Theory of Matter, > > > you make a claim that there is a factor in the gravitational force that > > > has a variable impact energy factor, which you say "varies with the > > > velocity components of the potential energy between them". Potential > > > energy, as that is understood by physicists, does not have velocity > > > components of any kind. > > > > Oh, use your scone for fuck's sake. > > See the term "impact energy"? E = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2) > > If it's E then why do you call it v in the gravity formula? I call it v[e], the *velocity components* of the energy. > Also note that ½(mv^2 + Iw^2) has absolutely nothing to do with > potential energy, Again, moron, see the term "impact energy". > let alone "velocity components of the potential > energy". It's GOBBLEDYGOOK. So think energy potential. > > Quit the quibbling. > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > Thus this statement, which includes an important > > > new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist. > > > > To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist. > > Cite one physicist who declares it's NOT gobbledygook. Cite one physicist who's looked at the website, seen what you saw, and declares that it *is* gobbledygook. (HINT. I've now updated it, so your physicist will have to have looked at it already. It's too late for you to prime one.) > > > Along with this you make a > > > footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass" > > > which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out > > > elsewhere in this thread. > > > > Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of > > Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. > > What on earth are you talking about? Look below. > > Invariant mass means that the > > centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the > > distance between them and with no other factor. The > > relativistic increase in Mercury's momentum, however, means > > that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its > > perihelion will regress, not precess. ----snip---- > I've got no skin in the game. That's why you put so much effort into your sniping, is it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 09:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nstphu$m94$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394553 |
On 10/1/2016 9:09 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: >>>>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>>>> Strong and Weak nuclear forces. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what do you propose instead? >>>>> >>>>> Once again you confirm either that one or the other of your >>>>> comprehension and your concentration is substandard, or that >>>>> your assertion of having read my theory is a lie. >>>> >>>> I have never said, AFAIK, that I have read your theory. >>> >>> AFAIK? You're hedging your bets on your own memory? >>> Se your message <lok1a1$57i$1@speranza.aioe.org>, >>> dated 2014/06/27. >> >> Ah, yes, this explains it. At that time you had a different >> web page up, which is no longer available. > > So do you now know the meaning of the word "update"? Nevertheless, this explains why what I read earlier is not what you promoted this year. > >> The context of >> that message is this: > > It's irrelevant, except as a record of your mendacity. > > ----snip---- > >> I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since >> revision of your work. Why not? > > You've been told the reason for that repeatedly. Quit the posturing. So you're saying that your model is incapable of making quantitative predictions because of missing pieces? Very good then, that establishes what scientists need to know, doesn't it? Because any theory that cannot make quantitative predictions isn't worth looking at, is it? > >>>> Now that you HAVE provided your theory (it wasn't hard, three short >>>> one-pagers), > > Yes, marvellously elegant, n'est ce pas? > >>>> allow me to make a few observations about it. Let me be >>>> clear that I see a LOT of problems with it, but I'm choosing to only >>>> comment on a few because that's sufficient to make the point. Any one >>>> of the problems that I have cited here would be sufficient for any >>>> physicist to dismiss the work. >>>> >>>> 1. Errors of historical record. Einstein made no "wave packet model" of >>>> matter as part of special relativity. >>> >>> I didn't say he did, fuckwit. Learn to read English. >> >> Here's from your website, entitled The Particle Theory of Matter: >> ======================================================== >> "Then in the twentieth centiry, Albert Einstein provided one: he put >> forward his theory of Special Relativity, with its postulated ?wave >> packet? model." >> ====================================================== > > Shit, you're right. I thought I'd writtem "his" not "its". > That text is now updated again, with that passage reworded > to make it clearer. > > And I apologise for that instance of calling you a fucjwit. Apology accepted, and I would appreciate you taking another look at some of the other points I've made before calling me a fuckwit. > >>>> He did mention a wave packet model >>>> of light in another paper completely unrelated to special >>>> relativity. This kind of error will be seen by physicists >>>> that you don't know what you're talking about. >>> >>> Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru. >> >> They do if it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. > > I said "affect the theory". I did not say "affect perceptions of the > theory. Nevertheless, if a physicist reads that and has his perceptions of the theory affected as a result, he's just not going to go on. And that will have been the result of YOUR writing. > >> I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs >> like that. > > Everyone does. You did. Of course. Understandably. So what are you going to do about it? And what about the OTHER errors of historical fact that are littered in here as well? > >> If you want physicists to discount them and move on, >> perhaps you should delete them from your "work", > > I've corrected the one error. > >> because they are riddled with errors. > > Bullshit. Now, now, you dismissed one error and now have acknowledged it and corrected it. Do you need someone to go through and prove to you that there are other errors of historical fact FOR YOU, or are you going to go back and try to re-proof your own writings, because I can tell you that this kind of goof is going to result in no one treating it seriously. I pointed out ONE error of historical fact. I mentioned four or five problems and also told you that I found at least 20 in a first-pass, 10-minute reading. So do you need EACH ONE of those egregious problems hammered into your thick skull before you'll address them? > >>>> 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't >>>> do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with >>>> measurements. >>> >>> There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments. >> >> "baliflu...experments"? > > Typo. I'm not a touch typist and I have bad eyesight, which affects both > my typing and my proofreading. > > The word I intended is "validly". You'll have to explain why no observations after 1900 are validly designed or interpreted. Take each one in turn. > >>>> I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship >>>> between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out >>>> in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not >>>> give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict >>>> the mass of a green-light photon, for example. >>> >>> Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one. >>> Read it again, you lying maggot: >>> >>> Mass >>> Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle >>> Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + I#2), from which the >>> photon's mass will be calculable if: >>> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or >>> wavelength of photons from a source are measured, >>> allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #; >>> 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf >>> replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the >>> difference in speed from the value assumed in >>> Planck's Law; >>> 3 The correct assumptions are made >>> about the shape and density of the >>> photon, allowing the correct formula to >>> be substituted for I and the equation >>> rearranged to solve for m. >>> >>> There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet. >> >> You don't think the energy, speed, and frequency have been measured? > > Correct. What do you think is involved in measuring the energy, the speed, or the frequency of light? > >> And you're the only person I know of that is claiming that a photon has >> a value of I > > In *this* theory the photon is a particle. > I is the synbol for moment of inertia. First of all, classical particles do not have a shape or a volume. In classical physics, a moment of inertia is a property of an extended body, NOT a particle, and if you read a basic physics book, you'll see that they call out that they are STOPPING treating bodies as particles when they introduce rotation and moment of inertia. This is another one of the things that I noticed where you have a problem with basic concepts and where a physicist reading it would ball it up and toss it in the trashcan. > >> (or for that matter a shape and density). > > In this theory a particle is a lump of matter. Lumps of matter > have shape, and they have density. > >> So if not you >> providing the formula for I and the shape and the density, then who? > > See 3. Right, so if YOU are not providing a model for the shape and density of the photon then who? You have a theory with a hole that is preventing any quantitative calculations. Without that hole plugged, you have a theory that can't do anything useful. Yet another reason that physicists will ball it up and throw it away. > >>>> In fact, because you do not specify the relation between >>>> I and m for a photon, you do not even show it is possible >>>> to predict the mass of a green-light photon. > > ----blaf blag snipped---- > >> Note that you STILL don't have a single quantitative prediction >> from your theory. > > False. However there are none re the mass of particles. BFD. > As I said, data are not yet available for them. You don't believe that we know the mass of a proton, electron, neutron and photon? How do you know they even exist? > >> Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has >> been summarily ignored? > > How would anyone who's ignored it know that those calculations > haven't been made? Has anyone cited your work in their own publications? Anyone? Are you aware that not having your work cited by other authors is what constitutes being ignored in the science world? > >>>> >>>> 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your >>>> experimental proposals will show that the current models are a >>>> failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do >>>> not do that. >>> >>> I claim A but I do not do that? >>> >>> You wanna restate that in English, Bubba? >> >> Here: You claim that you have presented experimental proposals that will >> show that the current models are a failure -- that is, they do not agree >> with experiment > > Show me that claim. Oh, I'm sure you've scrubbed it by now. :) > >> -- but you have in fact not done that. > > Done WHAT? > >>>> For example, your proposed experiment with charged balloons and a piece >>>> of paper between them does not show that the predictions of weak and >>>> strong forces do not match experiment. >>> >>> I make no such asserion, you lying maggot. >>> >>>> What you showed is that >>>> attraction can happen between like-signed objects, which is KNOWN for >>>> any object with an induced polarization. >>> >>> Oh, goody. >>> >>>> (This induced polarization is >>>> in fact discussed in basic books.) But what you have NOT explained is >>>> not only that protons attract each other (and neutrons as well), but >>>> they do so with a force about a million times larger than the >>>> electrostatic repulsion -- that is measured, by the way. >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >> You didn't know about this factor of a million?? > > I don't even know that the attractive force you assert has been > measured. I'm sure you and the physicists *think* it's been > measured. Just as I'm sure that you regard your assumptions > as knowledge. Then you have some reading to do. > >> Where the fuck have you been? > > Watching the circus you call physics. > >>>> 4. Lack of grasp of basic concepts. In your Particle Theory of Matter, >>>> you make a claim that there is a factor in the gravitational force that >>>> has a variable impact energy factor, which you say "varies with the >>>> velocity components of the potential energy between them". Potential >>>> energy, as that is understood by physicists, does not have velocity >>>> components of any kind. >>> >>> Oh, use your scone for fuck's sake. >>> See the term "impact energy"? E = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2) >> >> If it's E then why do you call it v in the gravity formula? > > I call it v[e], the *velocity components* of the energy. > >> Also note that ½(mv^2 + Iw^2) has absolutely nothing to do with >> potential energy, > > Again, moron, see the term "impact energy". > >> let alone "velocity components of the potential >> energy". It's GOBBLEDYGOOK. > > So think energy potential. "Potential energy" has a specific meaning in physics, which is nothing like "energy potential". It is this kind of thing where a physicist reading this will immediately conclude "Ned Latham doesn't even know what potential energy is," ball up the printout and throw it out. And that is due to YOUR writing. And yes, I see you changing things as I point them out to you. > >>> Quit the quibbling. >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>> Thus this statement, which includes an important >>>> new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist. >>> >>> To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist. >> >> Cite one physicist who declares it's NOT gobbledygook. > > Cite one physicist who's looked at the website, seen what you saw, > and declares that it *is* gobbledygook. See above about being ignored. > > (HINT. I've now updated it, so your physicist will have to > have looked at it already. It's too late for you to prime > one.) > >>>> Along with this you make a >>>> footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass" >>>> which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out >>>> elsewhere in this thread. >>> >>> Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of >>> Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. >> >> What on earth are you talking about? > > Look below. > >>> Invariant mass means that the >>> centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the >>> distance between them and with no other factor. The >>> relativistic increase in Mercury's momentum, however, means >>> that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its >>> perihelion will regress, not precess. > > ----snip---- > >> I've got no skin in the game. > > That's why you put so much effort into your sniping, is it? > I'm explaining to you, Ned, why your writing is going to be immediately perceived by physicists as being worthless tripe. If you don't care, fine. Then I don't care either. 1. If you have errors of historical fact, like when colliders were invented or whether Einstein included wave packets in his presentation of special relativity, then your writing will be ignored. 2. If you have basic misunderstandings of simple physics concepts, like whether a particle has a moment of inertia or whether potential energy has velocity components, then your writing will be ignored. 3. If you do not have any way to do quantitative predictions with calculations in your theory that present NUMBERS that can be compared to measurement, then your writing will be ignored. 4. If someone can take your idea and easily show that it is inconsistent with known observational data, then your writing will be ignored. If you intend to just engage in abusive banter to elicit suggestions for corrections you need to make to try to fix some of these problems, then it's an uninteresting conversation. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 22:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5lfk.bhs.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394692 |
Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
----snip----
> > > I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since
> > > revision of your work. Why not?
> >
> > You've been told the reason for that repeatedly. Quit the posturing.
>
> So you're saying that your model is incapable of making quantitative
> predictions because of missing pieces?
Nope. In some areas it's incapable of making quantitative predictions
because of missing data.
The Force of gravity is one such area; we don't have data for creating
a curve of v[e].
> Very good then, that establishes what scientists need to know,
> doesn't it?
In the exemplified area, measurements of gravitational force over a
wide range of delta vee between two bodies.
> Because any theory that cannot
> make quantitative predictions isn't worth looking at, is it?
So Darwin's Theory of evolution isn't worth looking at?
----snip----
> > Shit, you're right. I thought I'd writtem "his" not "its".
> > That text is now updated again, with that passage reworded
> > to make it clearer.
> >
> > And I apologise for that instance of calling you a fucjwit.
>
> Apology accepted, and I would appreciate you taking another look at
> some of the other points I've made before calling me a fuckwit.
You estavlish an instance of my calling you so and I'll
apologise for it.
> > > > > He did mention a wave packet model
> > > > > of light in another paper completely unrelated to special
> > > > > relativity. This kind of error will be seen by physicists
> > > > > that you don't know what you're talking about.
> > > >
> > > > Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru.
> > >
> > > They do if it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about.
> >
> > I said "affect the theory". I did not say "affect perceptions of the
> > theory.
>
> Nevertheless, if a physicist reads that and has his perceptions of the
> theory affected as a result, he's just not going to go on. And that will
> have been the result of YOUR writing.
I don't thonk you understand the nature of academic bigotry. They're not
going to read *any* of it without some forceful motivation, and I reckon
that if that's present, the introduction won't turn it off.
> > > I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs
> > > like that.
> >
> > Everyone does. You did.
>
> Of course. Understandably. So what are you going to do about it?
Nothing. There's another thing you don't understand, despite the clue
you have: I'm never going to get any benefit from any of my work, so
to put it simply, I don't give a fuck whether the establishment in any
domain I've entered accept it or not. I've presented it; if they want
to ignore it, that's their loss.
> > > If you want physicists to discount them and move on,
> > > perhaps you should delete them from your "work",
> >
> > I've corrected the one error.
> >
> > > because they are riddled with errors.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> Now, now, you dismissed one error and now have acknowledged it and
> corrected it. Do you need someone to go through and prove to you that
> there are other errors of historical fact FOR YOU,
Yep. Two whole paragraphs. Is it too much for you?
----snip----
> I mentioned four
> or five problems and also told you that I found at least 20 in a
> first-pass, 10-minute reading.
And I'm a mindreader who knows exactly what you think you've found.
Yair, right.
> So do you need EACH ONE of those
> egregious problems hammered into your thick skull
Tch. Are you trying to start another slanging match?
> before you'll address them?
If I'm as ignorant as you say, how can I know what to address?
> > > > > 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't
> > > > > do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with
> > > > > measurements.
> > > >
> > > > There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments.
> > >
> > > "baliflu...experments"?
> >
> > Typo. I'm not a touch typist and I have bad eyesight, which affects both
> > my typing and my proofreading.
> >
> > The word I intended is "validly".
>
> You'll have to explain why no observations after 1900 are validly
> designed or interpreted.
The approximate date is 1840. And I've done it already.
> Take each one in turn.
No need.
> > > > > I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship
> > > > > between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out
> > > > > in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not
> > > > > give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict
> > > > > the mass of a green-light photon, for example.
> > > >
> > > > Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one.
> > > > Read it again, you lying maggot:
> > > >
> > > > Mass
> > > > Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle
> > > > Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + Iw^2), from which the
> > > > photon's mass will be calculable if:
> > > > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or
> > > > wavelength of photons from a source are measured,
> > > > allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #;
> > > > 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf
> > > > replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the
> > > > difference in speed from the value assumed in
> > > > Planck's Law;
> > > > 3 The correct assumptions are made
> > > > about the shape and density of the
> > > > photon, allowing the correct formula to
> > > > be substituted for I and the equation
> > > > rearranged to solve for m.
> > > >
> > > > There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet.
> > >
> > > You don't think the energy, speed, and frequency have been measured?
> >
> > Correct.
>
> What do you think is involved in measuring the energy, the speed, or the
> frequency of light?
Energy: impact-induced heat increase per photon on a detector.
Speed: Michelson-Morley type of measurement will do.
Wavelength \
or > dunno ... colour?
Frequency /
All from the one source, with no change in any of the conditions
pertaing for the first measurement made.
> > > And you're the only person I know of that is claiming that a photon has
> > > a value of I
> >
> > In *this* theory the photon is a particle.
> > I is the synbol for moment of inertia.
>
> First of all, classical particles do not have a shape or a volume.
Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory.
> In classical physics, a moment of inertia is a property of an extended
> body, NOT a particle, and if you read a basic physics book, you'll see
> that they call out that they are STOPPING treating bodies as particles
> when they introduce rotation and moment of inertia.
Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory.
> This is another one of the things that I noticed where you have a
> problem with basic concepts
The problem is yours. This is not Classical theory. This is a new
theory. Pushing foreign "concepts" into it is straw man thinking.
----snip----
> > > So if not you
> > > providing the formula for I and the shape and the density, then who?
> >
> > See 3.
>
> Right, so if YOU are not providing a model for the shape and density of
> the photon then who?
As I saud: see 3.
----snip----
> > > > > In fact, because you do not specify the relation between
> > > > > I and m for a photon, you do not even show it is possible
> > > > > to predict the mass of a green-light photon.
> >
> > ----blaf blag snipped----
> >
> > > Note that you STILL don't have a single quantitative prediction
> > > from your theory.
> >
> > False. However there are none re the mass of particles. BFD.
> > As I said, data are not yet available for them.
>
> You don't believe that we know the mass of a proton, electron, neutron
> and photon?
Correct.
> How do you know they even exist?
I don't. I postulate them.
> > > Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has
> > > been summarily ignored?
> >
> > How would anyone who's ignored it know that those calculations
> > haven't been made?
>
> Has anyone cited your work in their own publications? Anyone? Are you
> aware that not having your work cited by other authors is what
> constitutes being ignored in the science world?
You eavde the question. How would anyone who's ignored my work know
that those calculations haven't been made?
> > > > > 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your
> > > > > experimental proposals will show that the current models are a
> > > > > failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do
> > > > > not do that.
> > > >
> > > > I claim A but I do not do that?
> > > >
> > > > You wanna restate that in English, Bubba?
> > >
> > > Here: You claim that you have presented experimental proposals that will
> > > show that the current models are a failure -- that is, they do not agree
> > > with experiment
> >
> > Show me that claim.
>
> Oh, I'm sure you've scrubbed it by now. :)
I could have, if I'd made it. But unlike you, I don't lie.
There are tow or three versaions of the theory posted on Usenet?
Accomplished as I am, I can't scrub that.
Show me that claim.
----snip----
> > I don't even know that the attractive force you assert has been
> > measured. I'm sure you and the physicists *think* it's been
> > measured. Just as I'm sure that you regard your assumptions
> > as knowledge.
>
> Then you have some reading to do.
Nope. You do. Those "forces" have never been measured.
----snip----
> And yes, I see you changing things as I point them out to you.
There you go: not such an obstinate ignoramus after all.
> > > > > Thus this statement, which includes an important
> > > > > new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist.
> > > >
> > > > To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist.
> > >
> > > Cite one physicist who declares it's NOT gobbledygook.
> >
> > Cite one physicist who's looked at the website, seen what you saw,
> > and declares that it *is* gobbledygook.
>
> See above about being ignored.
So your challenge was just more of your prejudicial bullshit, huh?
Quelle surprise.
----snip----
> > > > > Along with this you make a
> > > > > footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass"
> > > > > which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out
> > > > > elsewhere in this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of
> > > > Mercury's perihelion doesn't work.
> > >
> > > What on earth are you talking about?
> >
> > Look below.
> >
> > > > Invariant mass means that the
> > > > centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the
> > > > distance between them and with no other factor. The
> > > > relativistic increase in Mercury's momentum, however, means
> > > > that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its
> > > > perihelion will regress, not precess.
Twice you've ignored that. Waassa madder, you can't understand it?
----posturing snipped----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 17:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsulbv$dcd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394750 |
On 10/3/2016 5:04 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>> I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since >>>> revision of your work. Why not? >>> >>> You've been told the reason for that repeatedly. Quit the posturing. >> >> So you're saying that your model is incapable of making quantitative >> predictions because of missing pieces? > > Nope. In some areas it's incapable of making quantitative predictions > because of missing data. > > The Force of gravity is one such area; we don't have data for creating > a curve of v[e]. > >> Very good then, that establishes what scientists need to know, >> doesn't it? > > In the exemplified area, measurements of gravitational force over a > wide range of delta vee between two bodies. > >> Because any theory that cannot >> make quantitative predictions isn't worth looking at, is it? > > So Darwin's Theory of evolution isn't worth looking at? Not in physics. But in any event, you didn't know that Darwin's theory makes quantitative testable predictions??? How LITTLE you know. > > ----snip---- > >>> Shit, you're right. I thought I'd writtem "his" not "its". >>> That text is now updated again, with that passage reworded >>> to make it clearer. >>> >>> And I apologise for that instance of calling you a fucjwit. >> >> Apology accepted, and I would appreciate you taking another look at >> some of the other points I've made before calling me a fuckwit. > > You estavlish an instance of my calling you so and I'll > apologise for it. I'm not sure you'll be able to spell it. > >>>>>> He did mention a wave packet model >>>>>> of light in another paper completely unrelated to special >>>>>> relativity. This kind of error will be seen by physicists >>>>>> that you don't know what you're talking about. >>>>> >>>>> Prejudical bulldhit. Those paragraphs don't affect the theoru. >>>> >>>> They do if it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. >>> >>> I said "affect the theory". I did not say "affect perceptions of the >>> theory. >> >> Nevertheless, if a physicist reads that and has his perceptions of the >> theory affected as a result, he's just not going to go on. And that will >> have been the result of YOUR writing. > > I don't thonk you understand the nature of academic bigotry. They're not > going to read *any* of it without some forceful motivation, and I reckon > that if that's present, the introduction won't turn it off. What forceful motivation do you have in mind? > >>>> I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs >>>> like that. >>> >>> Everyone does. You did. >> >> Of course. Understandably. So what are you going to do about it? > > Nothing. There's another thing you don't understand, despite the clue > you have: I'm never going to get any benefit from any of my work, so > to put it simply, I don't give a fuck whether the establishment in any > domain I've entered accept it or not. I've presented it; if they want > to ignore it, that's their loss. Or not a loss. > >>>> If you want physicists to discount them and move on, >>>> perhaps you should delete them from your "work", >>> >>> I've corrected the one error. >>> >>>> because they are riddled with errors. >>> >>> Bullshit. >> >> Now, now, you dismissed one error and now have acknowledged it and >> corrected it. Do you need someone to go through and prove to you that >> there are other errors of historical fact FOR YOU, > > Yep. Two whole paragraphs. Is it too much for you? If you can't do the research to find your own errors, that's a problem. > > ----snip---- > >> I mentioned four >> or five problems and also told you that I found at least 20 in a >> first-pass, 10-minute reading. > > And I'm a mindreader who knows exactly what you think you've found. > Yair, right. You wouldn't HAVE to read my mind if you had done any reading. > >> So do you need EACH ONE of those >> egregious problems hammered into your thick skull > > Tch. Are you trying to start another slanging match? > >> before you'll address them? > > If I'm as ignorant as you say, how can I know what to address? You WON'T. Exactly as you stated above. You're not a mind-reader, plus you're ignorant. Hence the "work" is ignorable. > >>>>>> 2. Missing quantitative predictions. In general, your papers don't >>>>>> do any calculations to show ANY quantitative agreement with >>>>>> measurements. >>>>> >>>>> There aren't any data from baliflu designed and interpreted experments. >>>> >>>> "baliflu...experments"? >>> >>> Typo. I'm not a touch typist and I have bad eyesight, which affects both >>> my typing and my proofreading. >>> >>> The word I intended is "validly". >> >> You'll have to explain why no observations after 1900 are validly >> designed or interpreted. > > The approximate date is 1840. And I've done it already. I don't think so. > >> Take each one in turn. > > No need. Nor ability. > >>>>>> I'll give you one example. You claim that there is a relationship >>>>>> between the mass of a photon and its frequency, which you call out >>>>>> in your Particle Theory of Light, Mass section. However, you do not >>>>>> give any example of this calculation actually being done to predict >>>>>> the mass of a green-light photon, for example. >>>>> >>>>> Wow. There's a sleazebag misrepresentation, if ever I saw one. >>>>> Read it again, you lying maggot: >>>>> >>>>> Mass >>>>> Taking Planck's Law and the second postulate of the Particle >>>>> Theory together yields nhf = ½(mv2 + Iw^2), from which the >>>>> photon's mass will be calculable if: >>>>> 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or >>>>> wavelength of photons from a source are measured, >>>>> allowing numerical substituion of n, f, v, and #; >>>>> 2 If need be, a constant k = E / nf >>>>> replaces Planck's constant to adjust for the >>>>> difference in speed from the value assumed in >>>>> Planck's Law; >>>>> 3 The correct assumptions are made >>>>> about the shape and density of the >>>>> photon, allowing the correct formula to >>>>> be substituted for I and the equation >>>>> rearranged to solve for m. >>>>> >>>>> There are no data for making such calcykations. Yet. >>>> >>>> You don't think the energy, speed, and frequency have been measured? >>> >>> Correct. >> >> What do you think is involved in measuring the energy, the speed, or the >> frequency of light? > > Energy: impact-induced heat increase per photon on a detector. Why heat???? > Speed: Michelson-Morley type of measurement will do. Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't measure the speed of light. Another fine example of you lacking the basics. > Wavelength \ > or > dunno ... colour? > Frequency / And go ahead, let's say it's greenish-blue. How does that tell you either? Don't know? That would be my point. You don't know. > > All from the one source, with no change in any of the conditions > pertaing for the first measurement made. Why do you think that green light from one source is different than green light from another source? > >>>> And you're the only person I know of that is claiming that a photon has >>>> a value of I >>> >>> In *this* theory the photon is a particle. >>> I is the synbol for moment of inertia. >> >> First of all, classical particles do not have a shape or a volume. > > Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory. Then you've invented a new meaning for the word "particle". Tell me what you think "particle" means. > >> In classical physics, a moment of inertia is a property of an extended >> body, NOT a particle, and if you read a basic physics book, you'll see >> that they call out that they are STOPPING treating bodies as particles >> when they introduce rotation and moment of inertia. > > Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory. Then if you're using the moment of inertia from Classical theory and you want to apply it to something that is NOT Classical theory, what's the formula that tells you how to find I? > >> This is another one of the things that I noticed where you have a >> problem with basic concepts > > The problem is yours. This is not Classical theory. This is a new > theory. Pushing foreign "concepts" into it is straw man thinking. You mean like moment of inertia? > > ----snip---- > >>>> So if not you >>>> providing the formula for I and the shape and the density, then who? >>> >>> See 3. >> >> Right, so if YOU are not providing a model for the shape and density of >> the photon then who? > > As I saud: see 3. > > ----snip---- > >>>>>> In fact, because you do not specify the relation between >>>>>> I and m for a photon, you do not even show it is possible >>>>>> to predict the mass of a green-light photon. >>> >>> ----blaf blag snipped---- >>> >>>> Note that you STILL don't have a single quantitative prediction >>>> from your theory. >>> >>> False. However there are none re the mass of particles. BFD. >>> As I said, data are not yet available for them. >> >> You don't believe that we know the mass of a proton, electron, neutron >> and photon? > > Correct. > >> How do you know they even exist? > > I don't. I postulate them. Without evidence? Why? > >>>> Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has >>>> been summarily ignored? >>> >>> How would anyone who's ignored it know that those calculations >>> haven't been made? >> >> Has anyone cited your work in their own publications? Anyone? Are you >> aware that not having your work cited by other authors is what >> constitutes being ignored in the science world? > > You eavde the question. How would anyone who's ignored my work know > that those calculations haven't been made? They wouldn't. If you have them, they should be provided. As it is, what you've provided is so incomplete as to be useless. > >>>>>> 3. Bait-and-switch on experimental proposals. You claim that your >>>>>> experimental proposals will show that the current models are a >>>>>> failure (that is, they do not agree with experiment), but you do >>>>>> not do that. >>>>> >>>>> I claim A but I do not do that? >>>>> >>>>> You wanna restate that in English, Bubba? >>>> >>>> Here: You claim that you have presented experimental proposals that will >>>> show that the current models are a failure -- that is, they do not agree >>>> with experiment >>> >>> Show me that claim. >> >> Oh, I'm sure you've scrubbed it by now. :) > > I could have, if I'd made it. But unlike you, I don't lie. > There are tow or three versaions of the theory posted on Usenet? > Accomplished as I am, I can't scrub that. > > Show me that claim. > > ----snip---- > >>> I don't even know that the attractive force you assert has been >>> measured. I'm sure you and the physicists *think* it's been >>> measured. Just as I'm sure that you regard your assumptions >>> as knowledge. >> >> Then you have some reading to do. > > Nope. You do. Those "forces" have never been measured. Bullshit. > > ----snip---- > >> And yes, I see you changing things as I point them out to you. > > There you go: not such an obstinate ignoramus after all. > >>>>>> Thus this statement, which includes an important >>>>>> new factor, is gobbledygook to a physicist. >>>>> >>>>> To you, perhaps, but you're not a ohysicist. >>>> >>>> Cite one physicist who declares it's NOT gobbledygook. >>> >>> Cite one physicist who's looked at the website, seen what you saw, >>> and declares that it *is* gobbledygook. >> >> See above about being ignored. > > So your challenge was just more of your prejudicial bullshit, huh? > Quelle surprise. > > ----snip---- > >>>>>> Along with this you make a >>>>>> footnote observation about "Einstein's postulation of variable mass" >>>>>> which is another error of historical record as I have pointed out >>>>>> elsewhere in this thread. >>>>> >>>>> Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of >>>>> Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. >>>> >>>> What on earth are you talking about? >>> >>> Look below. >>> >>>>> Invariant mass means that the >>>>> centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the >>>>> distance between them and with no other factor. The >>>>> relativistic increase in Mercury's momentum, however, means >>>>> that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its >>>>> perihelion will regress, not precess. > > Twice you've ignored that. Waassa madder, you can't understand it? It's gobbledygook. > > ----posturing snipped---- > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 23:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv5prs.ept.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394754 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > > I notice that you have done NONE of these calculations since > > > > > revision of your work. Why not? > > > > > > > > You've been told the reason for that repeatedly. Quit the posturing. > > > > > > So you're saying that your model is incapable of making quantitative > > > predictions because of missing pieces? > > > > Nope. In some areas it's incapable of making quantitative predictions > > because of missing data. > > > > The Force of gravity is one such area; we don't have data for creating > > a curve of v[e]. > > > > > Very good then, that establishes what scientists need to know, > > > doesn't it? > > > > In the exemplified area, measurements of gravitational force over a > > wide range of delta vee between two bodies. > > > > > Because any theory that cannot > > > make quantitative predictions isn't worth looking at, is it? > > > > So Darwin's Theory of evolution isn't worth looking at? > > Not in physics. You said "any theory". Quit quibbling. > But in any event, you didn't know that Nobody knows that which isn't. > Darwin's theory makes > quantitative testable predictions??? Prove that statement. ----snip---- > > > Nevertheless, if a physicist reads that and has his perceptions of the > > > theory affected as a result, he's just not going to go on. And that will > > > have been the result of YOUR writing. > > > > I don't thonk you understand the nature of academic bigotry. They're not > > going to read *any* of it without some forceful motivation, and I reckon > > that if that's present, the introduction won't turn it off. > > What forceful motivation do you have in mind? Nothing. Why would I bother? > > > > > I'm just telling you how physicists are going to react to paragraphs > > > > > like that. > > > > > > > > Everyone does. You did. > > > > > > Of course. Understandably. So what are you going to do about it? > > > > Nothing. There's another thing you don't understand, despite the clue > > you have: I'm never going to get any benefit from any of my work, so > > to put it simply, I don't give a fuck whether the establishment in any > > domain I've entered accept it or not. I've presented it; if they want > > to ignore it, that's their loss. > > Or not a loss. Wrong, ----snip---- > > > You'll have to explain why no observations after 1900 are validly > > > designed or interpreted. > > > > The approximate date is 1840. And I've done it already. > > I don't think so. You don't think. ----snip---- > > > What do you think is involved in measuring the energy, the speed, or the > > > frequency of light? > > > > Energy: impact-induced heat increase per photon on a detector. > > Why heat???? Energy, idiot. > > Speed: Michelson-Morley type of measurement will do. > > Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't measure the speed of light. Another > fine example of you lacking the basics. Wrong again. Do some reading. > > Wavelength \ > > or > dunno ... colour? > > Frequency / > > And go ahead, let's say it's greenish-blue. How does that tell you > either? Don't know? That would be my point. You don't know. That's what *I* said. The thing is, *no-one* knows. Yet. > > All from the one source, with no change in any of the conditions > > pertaing for the first measurement made. > > Why do you think that green light from one source is different than > green light from another source? Why do you think that cherrypicking apparati is a valid precedure? ----snip---- > > > First of all, classical particles do not have a shape or a volume. > > > > Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory. > > Then you've invented a new meaning for the word "particle". Tell me what > you think "particle" means. It's defined in the theory section. Are you now confessing to yet another lie about reading it? > > > In classical physics, a moment of inertia is a property of an extended > > > body, NOT a particle, and if you read a basic physics book, you'll see > > > that they call out that they are STOPPING treating bodies as particles > > > when they introduce rotation and moment of inertia. > > > > Irrelevant. This is not Classical theory. > > Then if you're using the moment of inertia from Classical theory and you > want to apply it to something that is NOT Classical theory, what's the > formula that tells you how to find I? That's discussed in the theory section. Are you now confessing to yet another lie about reading it? > > > This is another one of the things that I noticed where you have a > > > problem with basic concepts > > > > The problem is yours. This is not Classical theory. This is a new > > theory. Pushing foreign "concepts" into it is straw man thinking. > > You mean like moment of inertia? Nope. Your idea of classical particles. ----snip---- > > > > As I said, data are not yet available for them. > > > > > > You don't believe that we know the mass of a proton, electron, neutron > > > and photon? > > > > Correct. > > > > > How do you know they even exist? > > > > I don't. I postulate them. > > Without evidence? Nope. ----snip---- > > > > > Not one. Is it any wonder that your "work" has > > > > > been summarily ignored? > > > > > > > > How would anyone who's ignored it know that those calculations > > > > haven't been made? > > > > > > Has anyone cited your work in their own publications? Anyone? Are you > > > aware that not having your work cited by other authors is what > > > constitutes being ignored in the science world? > > > > You eavde the question. How would anyone who's ignored my work know > > that those calculations haven't been made? > > They wouldn't. Precisely. So your "is it any wonder" question above is just more of your prejudicial bullshit. ----snip---- > > > > > Here: You claim that you have presented experimental > > > > > proposals that will show that the current models are > > > > > a failure -- that is, they do not agree with experiment > > > > > > > > Show me that claim. > > > > > > Oh, I'm sure you've scrubbed it by now. :) > > > > I could have, if I'd made it. But unlike you, I don't lie. > > There are two or three versaions of the theory posted on Usenet. > > Accomplished as I am, I can't scrub that. > > > > Show me that claim. You can't, huh? So you've been caught out in yet another lie. Quelle surprise. > > > > I don't even know that the attractive force you assert has been > > > > measured. I'm sure you and the physicists *think* it's been > > > > measured. Just as I'm sure that you regard your assumptions > > > > as knowledge. > > > > > > Then you have some reading to do. > > > > Nope. You do. Those "forces" have never been measured. > > Bullshit. So prove that they have. ----snip---- > > > > > > Without variable mass, the GR explanation of the precession of > > > > > > Mercury's perihelion doesn't work. > > > > > > > > > > What on earth are you talking about? > > > > > > > > Look below. > > > > > > > > > > Invariant mass means that the > > > > > > centripetal force increases inversely with the square of the > > > > > > distance between them and with no other factor. The > > > > > > relativistic increase in Mercury's momentum, however, means > > > > > > that the centrifugal force increases more than that. Its > > > > > > perihelion will regress, not precess. > > > > Twice you've ignored that. Waassa madder, you can't understand it? > > It's gobbledygook. Gobbledegook: n. Bodkinese for "too hard for me".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-04 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt0fq6$1531$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394769 |
On 10/3/2016 6:19 PM, Ned Latham wrote: >> > But in any event, you didn't know that > Nobody knows that which isn't. > >> > Darwin's theory makes >> > quantitative testable predictions??? > Prove that statement. You are hopelessly uneducated and unread, you want people to inform you on usenet?? The most you can ask for is pointers for where you can go read up on stuff. You want those pointers? -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 02:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv8pjn.oet.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394809 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snup---- > > > Darwin's theory makes quantitative testable predictions??? > > > > Prove that statement. > > You are hopelessly uneducated and unread, That's your idiot assumption. Relevant to this point: I've read "Origin of Species". > want people to inform you on usenet?? I want you to admit your lie. But I'll be satisfied with another of your pathetic evasions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 18:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1624778.tdWV9SEqCh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #394376 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Particle accelerators SHOULD raise particles above c in a vacuum. Nonsense. > Cerenkov radiation would not exist if it were not for that speed limit. Nonsense. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 14:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nt3k44$4n9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394925 |
On 10/5/2016 11:11 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> Particle accelerators SHOULD raise particles above c in a vacuum. > > Nonsense. > >> Cerenkov radiation would not exist if it were not for that speed limit. > > Nonsense. > These statements were experimental outcomes IF c were not a maximal speed. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 10:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1759269.oMNUckLgyt@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #394105 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", > and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a geometric > theoren, and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a > means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string > theory, of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of > matter, That is not a given, but rather extraordinary claims *from you*. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Cite that evidence. > I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that > blesses university texts. Ex falso quodlibet: Whether your conclusion is valid depends on whether your premises are correct. The burden of proof is on you now to show that they are. I would not be surprised, however, if your premises were either misconceptions of what you think is evidence for them, or that you can produce no evidence at all. -- 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 | 2016-10-01 17:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuvt0h.lc2.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394460 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", > > and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a geometric > > theoren, and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a > > means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string > > theory, of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of > > matter, > > That is not a given, but rather extraordinary claims *from you*. You're wrong again, Pointy Head. Theyt're all givens. > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Cite that evidence. Already done. See message <slrnnuoocg.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>. > > I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that > > blesses university texts. > > Ex falso quodlibet: > Whether your conclusion is valid depends on whether your premises > are correct. The burden of proof is on you now You're wrong again, Pointy Head. It's already been provided. See message <slrnnuoocg.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>. > to show that they are. I would not be surprised, however, > if your premises were either misconceptions of what you > think is evidence for them, or that you can produce no > evidence at all. Next time you dall into the middle of a thread, check its progress before you succumb to the urge to mouth off with such arrogant idiocy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 20:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <2836798.44csPzL39Z@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #394498 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", >> > and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a geometric >> > theoren, and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a >> > means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string >> > theory, of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of >> > matter, >> >> That is not a given, but rather extraordinary claims *from you*. > > You're wrong again, Pointy Head. That is neither my name nor my nickname. Politeness requires you to use one of those in addressing me. Unless, of course, you are deliberately impolite, at which point our communication will cease from my part; I have better things to do than to feed trolls. > Theyt're all givens. Proof by claim is no proof at all. >> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Cite that evidence. > > Already done. See message <slrnnuoocg.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>. I can find nothing in that message that corroborates your claims. However, I find evidence there for my assumption that your claims are based on your misconceptions. >> to show that they are. I would not be surprised, however, >> if your premises were either misconceptions of what you >> think is evidence for them, or that you can produce no >> evidence at all. > > Next time you dall into the middle of a thread, check its > progress before you succumb to the urge to mouth off with > such arrogant idiocy. Nobody has to read everything before replying. Your argument is fallacious, and your impoliteness is unwarranted. -- 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 | 2016-10-02 02:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnv0rjm.6lg.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394506 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", > > > > and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a geometric > > > > theoren, and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a > > > > means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string > > > > theory, of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of > > > > matter, > > > > > > That is not a given, but rather extraordinary claims *from you*. > > > > You're wrong again, Pointy Head. > > That is neither my name nor my nickname. I know. > Politeness requires you to use one of those in addressing me. I know you from previous exchanges, Pointy Head. You don't get any leeway from me in any regard whatever. > Unless, of course, you are deliberately impolite, at which > point our communication will cease from my part; I have > better things to do than to feed trolls. Get yourself a Usenet dictionary and look the word up. I'm abusive, not a troll. ----snip---- > > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Cite that evidence. > > > > Already done. See message <slrnnuoocg.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz>. > > I can find nothing in that message that corroborates your claims. That is either a lie or a statement of utter stupidity. Try reading it. ----snip---- > > Next time you fall into the middle of a thread, check its > > progress before you succumb to the urge to mouth off with > > such arrogant idiocy. > > Nobody has to read everything before replying. Didn't say you do, Pointy Head. > Your argument is fallacious, It's not an argument, it's an instruction. > and your impoliteness is unwarranted. You're wrong again, Pointy Head.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4209150.GXAFRqVoOG@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #394554 |
Ned Latham wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >> > You're wrong again, Pointy Head. >> That is neither my name nor my nickname. > I know. > >> Politeness requires you to use one of those in addressing me. > I know you from previous exchanges, Pointy Head. You don't get > any leeway from me in any regard whatever. Only a sociopath thinks that it is “giving leeway” to be polite to other people. Instead, it is the *normal* way a society works. >> Unless, of course, you are deliberately impolite, at which >> point our communication will cease from my part; I have >> better things to do than to feed trolls. > > Get yourself a Usenet dictionary and look the word up. > I'm abusive, not a troll. Look it up yourself, and recognize yourself in it. *plonk* F'up2 poster -- 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 | 2016-10-05 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnvae2s.ddt.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394924 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > You're wrong again, Pointy Head. > > > > > > That is neither my name nor my nickname. > > > > I know. > > > > > Politeness requires you to use one of those in addressing me. > > > > I know you from previous exchanges, Pointy Head. You don't get > > any leeway from me in any regard whatever. > > Only a sociopath You wouldn't know a sociopath if (s)he bit you on the arse. > thinks that it is "giving leeway" to be polite > to other people. So you're another of those retarded fucks who can't remember his past behaviour, huh? Well, get this into your pointy little head: I *know* you from previous exchanges: you are am abusive shit: you have earnt abuse; if you want what you call politeness from me, you'll have to earn it. > Instead, it is the *normal* way a society works. No. the norm is that abusive shit like you get smacked when they step over the line. The internet protects petty little mouthoff merchants like you from the normal consequences of their bad behaviour, but not from retaliation in kind. So here, you get to suck it up. > > > Unless, of course, you are deliberately impolite, at which > > > point our communication will cease from my part; I have > > > better things to do than to feed trolls. > > > > Get yourself a Usenet dictionary and look the word up. > > I'm abusive, not a troll. > > Look it up yourself, Did that over a decade ago. > and recognize yourself in it. Under "abuse", perhaps. > *plonk* Larf. Yer gonna play killfile yo-yo for us? Ho hum. > F'up2 poster No way. You mouth off at me in public, you get a public response.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web