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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #455854 > unrolled thread

The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics

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

Contents

  The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 15:03 -0400
    The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:08 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:09 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:24 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 13:15 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 13:19 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 19:21 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 16:24 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 14:06 +0000
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:09 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:19 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-21 16:56 +0200
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-21 13:43 -0400
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-21 11:25 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-21 19:43 -0500
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-22 17:40 +0200
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-22 09:07 -0700
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-23 10:47 -0500
                  Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-26 20:12 +0200
                    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:57 -0700
                      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-04-26 15:05 -0700
                      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Jim Emile <leuu@wwjw.ce> - 2018-04-27 20:42 +0000
                        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 13:57 -0700
                          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-27 21:08 +0000
                            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 16:26 -0700
                              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Erin Koff <umhn@cniwwe.im> - 2018-04-28 11:00 +0000
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-13 19:22 +0000
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-13 19:24 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 02:44 +0200
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 10:20 +0000
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Libor P Striz <poutnik@privacy.net> - 2018-04-14 13:32 +0200
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Rusty Willard <wuut@yaiw.wu> - 2018-04-14 13:53 +0000
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:14 -0400
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 14:10 -0400
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:26 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:30 -0700
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:46 -0700
                Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 11:55 -0700
                  Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:08 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-04-14 11:59 +1000
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:02 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 20:24 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-04-13 22:51 -0500
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 17:26 -0700
    The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 21:17 -0700
      The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-13 21:21 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-14 21:00 +0200
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:15 -0700
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-14 15:28 -0400
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 12:50 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-14 13:05 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-04-14 22:07 +0200
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 06:14 +0100
      Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2018-05-16 13:50 +0200
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-16 19:31 +0000
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:48 -0700
        Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:10 -0700
          Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:30 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:56 -0700
            Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-05-18 10:33 -0500
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-05-18 21:10 +0200
              Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 00:14 -0700
    Re: The #1 DUMBEST Belief in Physics paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 06:21 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#457022

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 1:57:13 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote:
>
> ... recent conceptual advances in quantum theory,
> like the Conway-Kochen "free will theorem" which reduces the set of
> assumptions on _experimental results_ (not theories!) to a tiny minimum
> (3 statements). This can presumably go a long way toward weeding out
> lots of speculative ideas, I highly recommend it:
> 
> the original paper from 2006:
> https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0604079 
> 
> a stronger version with more discussion from 2009:
> http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf?q=will&sa=U&ei=k71jU8X7DoypyASw9YGoCA&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE7L-k87yWE32ru0rDjkLOdg12LRQ 
> 
> Bottom line is any unification of QM and GR must involve either a direct
> physical (abstract) model of "will" (in some sense) or there has to be
> a non-trivial addition made to spacetime: more "events" than GR's current
> 4D continuum. Both potentially involve an enormous number of extra
> parameters and choices, so this is highly non-trivial.
> 
> --
> Jan

Hi Jan,

An interesting paper; however, its assumption about space-like intervals
and reversal of time order may be a bit trickier than they believe.  The
conclusion that particles have some free will also is a bit shocking,
causing one to question at least one of the assumptions.

I've been mulling the FTL problem in SR and have concluded that it's
similar to the time dilation and length contraction ambiguity (for want
of a better name).  Specifically,  an observer moving relative to some
clock measures it running at a different rate than an observer stationary
wrt that clock, after compensating for time delay, Doppler effect, etc.).

When he arrives at the clock and does a direct comparison, however, he
finds the clock running at the correct rate.  Length contraction is even
more straight-forward since the effect disappears without a trace when
the rod and observer meet.  We assume the moving observer has a clock
that he synchronized with a clock stationary and synchronized wrt the
first clock.  The the moving observer's clock doesn't agree with the
first clock when they meet.  Outrageous!  Unheard of!

There is no problem with FTL in moving from point A to point B where
they are stationary wrt each other.  But to a moving observer, the
object got to B before it left A.  This is often touted as representing
a causality problem, but it's only a "problem" for the moving observer.
Why is he SO important?  True, when HE arrives at B he will check all
the clocks and see that B's clock recorded the time the object arrived
and his clock reads something else.  So what?

An experimenter may see causality violation apparently occurring some
distance away, but he really can't do anything about it.  HE can't
affect the outcome of the experiment.

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

#457057

JanPB wrote:

> a stronger version with more discussion from 2009:
> http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf?
q=will&sa=U&ei=k71jU8X7DoypyASw9YGoCA&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE7L-
k87yWE32ru0rDjkLOdg12LRQ
> 
> Bottom line is any unification of QM and GR must involve either a direct
> physical (abstract) model of "will" (in some sense) or there has to be a
> non-trivial addition made to spacetime: more "events" than GR's current
> 4D continuum. Both potentially involve an enormous number of extra
> parameters and choices, so this is highly non-trivial.

Nonsense. My _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ don't need any 
"unification". That "unification" is just a lingo coming from stupid 
people, not knowing what to do. Or rather, what they are up to.

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

#457060

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-7, Jim Emile wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > a stronger version with more discussion from 2009:
> > http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf?
> q=will&sa=U&ei=k71jU8X7DoypyASw9YGoCA&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE7L-
> k87yWE32ru0rDjkLOdg12LRQ
> > 
> > Bottom line is any unification of QM and GR must involve either a direct
> > physical (abstract) model of "will" (in some sense) or there has to be a
> > non-trivial addition made to spacetime: more "events" than GR's current
> > 4D continuum. Both potentially involve an enormous number of extra
> > parameters and choices, so this is highly non-trivial.
> 
> Nonsense. My _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ don't need any 
> "unification". That "unification" is just a lingo coming from stupid 
> people, not knowing what to do. Or rather, what they are up to.

Gobbledygook. See a doctor.

--
Jan

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

#457061

JanPB wrote:

> On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-7, Jim Emile wrote:
>> JanPB wrote:
>> 
>> > a stronger version with more discussion from 2009:
>> > http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf?
>> q=will&sa=U&ei=k71jU8X7DoypyASw9YGoCA&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE7L-
>> k87yWE32ru0rDjkLOdg12LRQ
>> > 
>> > Bottom line is any unification of QM and GR must involve either a
>> > direct physical (abstract) model of "will" (in some sense) or there
>> > has to be a non-trivial addition made to spacetime: more "events"
>> > than GR's current 4D continuum. Both potentially involve an enormous
>> > number of extra parameters and choices, so this is highly
>> > non-trivial.
>> 
>> Nonsense. My _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ don't need
>> any "unification". That "unification" is just a lingo coming from
>> stupid people, not knowing what to do. Or rather, what they are up to.
> 
> Gobbledygook. See a doctor.

He is a doctor, it makes no sense to go to another doctor. Or you are 
stupid, thinking that another doctor would know more material that the 
former doctor. You don't know how things are connected to each other, 
young man. Get familiar with what is going on in industry, before 
nonsensing your mouth. And show a little respect, before all that.

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

#457074

On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-7, Erin Koff wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Friday, April 27, 2018 at 1:42:26 PM UTC-7, Jim Emile wrote:
> >> JanPB wrote:
> >> 
> >> > a stronger version with more discussion from 2009:
> >> > http://www.ams.org/notices/200902/rtx090200226p.pdf?
> >> q=will&sa=U&ei=k71jU8X7DoypyASw9YGoCA&ved=0CCAQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNE7L-
> >> k87yWE32ru0rDjkLOdg12LRQ
> >> > 
> >> > Bottom line is any unification of QM and GR must involve either a
> >> > direct physical (abstract) model of "will" (in some sense) or there
> >> > has to be a non-trivial addition made to spacetime: more "events"
> >> > than GR's current 4D continuum. Both potentially involve an enormous
> >> > number of extra parameters and choices, so this is highly
> >> > non-trivial.
> >> 
> >> Nonsense. My _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ don't need
> >> any "unification". That "unification" is just a lingo coming from
> >> stupid people, not knowing what to do. Or rather, what they are up to.
> > 
> > Gobbledygook. See a doctor.
> 
> He is a doctor, it makes no sense to go to another doctor. Or you are 
> stupid, thinking that another doctor would know more material that the 
> former doctor. You don't know how things are connected to each other, 
> young man. Get familiar with what is going on in industry, before 
> nonsensing your mouth. And show a little respect, before all that.

Gobbledygook. See a doctor. You are just posting chaos.

--
Jan

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

#457085

JanPB wrote:

>> >> Nonsense. My _Divergent Matter of the Moving Bodies Model_ don't
>> >> need any "unification". That "unification" is just a lingo coming
>> >> from stupid people, not knowing what to do. Or rather, what they are
>> >> up to.
>> > 
>> > Gobbledygook. See a doctor.
>> 
>> He is a doctor, it makes no sense to go to another doctor. Or you are
>> stupid, thinking that another doctor would know more material that the
>> former doctor. You don't know how things are connected to each other,
>> young man. Get familiar with what is going on in industry, before
>> nonsensing your mouth. And show a little respect, before all that.
> 
> Gobbledygook. See a doctor. You are just posting chaos.

You have to be familiar in seeing doctors. A fruitcake autistic imbecile. 
Not realizing doctors know even less than one self, nowadays.

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

#455859

benj wrote:

> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up

1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its 
intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.

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

#455877

On 4/13/2018 3:22 PM, Rusty Willard wrote:
> benj wrote:
> 
>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up
> 
> 1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its
> intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.
> 
Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is. Waves 
are energy or other action. They are "what".

Why do all these deniers have to start calling people stupid when their 
religion gets questioned? The proper form is to discuss the issues, not 
the personalities.

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

#455884

Dne 14/04/2018 v 01:24 benj napsal(a):
> On 4/13/2018 3:22 PM, Rusty Willard wrote:

>> 1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its
>> intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.
>>
> Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is. Waves
> are energy or other action. They are "what".

Waves are self propagating dual space/time periodicities
of physical or mathematical quantities.

Energy or action may or may not be included.

Y = sin ( omega * t - k * x ) is wave.


> Why do all these deniers have to start calling people stupid when their
> religion gets questioned? The proper form is to discuss the issues, not
> the personalities.

Religion is the believe in existence of something non detectable,
e.g. in aether or small pink fairies pushing objects here and there.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

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

#455906

benj wrote:

> On 4/13/2018 3:22 PM, Rusty Willard wrote:
>> benj wrote:
>> 
>>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum
>>> up
>> 
>> 1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its
>> intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.
>> 
> Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is. Waves
> are energy or other action. They are "what".

So you dont know what energy is either. Light is NOT energy. Dont be a 
fool like your friends.

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

#455907

Dne 14/04/2018 v 12:20 Rusty Willard napsal(a):
> benj wrote:
> 
>> On 4/13/2018 3:22 PM, Rusty Willard wrote:
>>> benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum
>>>> up
>>>
>>> 1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its
>>> intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.
>>>
>> Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is. Waves
>> are energy or other action. They are "what".
> 
> So you dont know what energy is either. Light is NOT energy. Dont be a 
> fool like your friends.
> 
Of course it is not energy, it just carries it.
But it is a frequently used shortcut
that is understood by all physicists, as by many others.

Like "the speed wrt the observer" is the shortcut for
"the speed wrt the coordinate system where the observer is in rest."

But one can always find some objecting nitpickers
and/or people who do not understand the shortcut status.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

I have the legal right for my valid address not to be publicly exposed.
I am not obligated to follow any RFC part
that is in conflict with that.

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

#455911

Libor P Striz wrote:

>>> Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is.
>>> Waves are energy or other action. They are "what".
>> 
>> So you dont know what energy is either. Light is NOT energy. Dont be a
>> fool like your friends.
>> 
> Of course it is not energy, it just carries it.
> But it is a frequently used shortcut that is understood by all
> physicists,
> as by many others.
> Like "the speed wrt the observer" is the shortcut for "the speed wrt the
> coordinate system where the observer is in rest." 
> But one can always find some objecting nitpickers and/or people who do
> not understand the shortcut status.

I dont know. What do you think?

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

#455941

On 4/14/2018 7:32 AM, Libor P Striz wrote:
> Dne 14/04/2018 v 12:20 Rusty Willard napsal(a):
>> benj wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2018 3:22 PM, Rusty Willard wrote:
>>>> benj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum
>>>>> up
>>>>
>>>> 1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its
>>>> intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.
>>>>
>>> Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is. Waves
>>> are energy or other action. They are "what".
>>
>> So you dont know what energy is either. Light is NOT energy. Dont be a
>> fool like your friends.
>>
> Of course it is not energy, it just carries it.
> But it is a frequently used shortcut
> that is understood by all physicists, as by many others.
> 
> Like "the speed wrt the observer" is the shortcut for
> "the speed wrt the coordinate system where the observer is in rest."
> 
> But one can always find some objecting nitpickers
> and/or people who do not understand the shortcut status.

So if light is only the "carrier" of energy, then we are back to the 
question: What actually IS light? Looks like you don't know either!

If we say light is a a wave, then what exactly IS the "wave"? We can 
know what the medium is but that is not the wave. And we know that there 
is energy carried along but it isn't the wave either! So what exactly is 
the wave?

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

#455940

On 4/14/2018 6:20 AM, Rusty Willard wrote:
> benj wrote:
> 
>> On 4/13/2018 3:22 PM, Rusty Willard wrote:
>>> benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum
>>>> up
>>>
>>> 1st error, waves of what? And a 2nd error, how would you derive the its
>>> intensity? Or rather, you don't know what you are up to.
>>>
>> Nonsensical comment. Define your idea of what you think a wave is. Waves
>> are energy or other action. They are "what".
> 
> So you dont know what energy is either. Light is NOT energy. Dont be a
> fool like your friends.
> 
You know I've done a lot of laser cutting and welding of large steel 
plates. I don't remember seeing any heat, sparks or melted metal which 
would be evidence of energy. I sure don't want to be a fool like some of 
the kook posters here.

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

#455944

(c^5/(hbar*G^2))/ (3.71295774e-28 m^3 / kg) * (((0.5^0.5 m*planck length / (c^2)) * G)^2) = 1



((((0.5^0.5 m*planck length / (c^2)) * G)^2*kg^2))/((2.4263102367e-12*1.00812319494) m/c/4)^6 = 1

2.4263102367e-12 Compton wavelength electron 

2.4263102367e-12 * 1.00812319494 = 2.4460196e-12

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

#455946

benj wrote 

You know I've done a lot of laser cutting and welding of large steel 
plates. I don't remember seeing any heat, sparks or melted metal which 
would be evidence of energy. I sure don't want to be a fool like some of 
the kook posters here. 

This is one one I ran ... Salvagnini L1Xe

https://youtu.be/Xktosj5UMD0

There was Definitely Heat & Melting proven by the pounds of Dross I carted Away Regularly

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

#455949

benj wrote 

You know I've done a lot of laser cutting and welding of large steel 
plates. I don't remember seeing any heat, sparks or melted metal which 
would be evidence of energy. I sure don't want to be a fool like some of 
the kook posters here. 

This is one one I ran ... Salvagnini L1Xe 

https://youtu.be/Xktosj5UMD0 

There was Definitely Heat & Melting proven by the pounds of Dross I carted Away Regularly 

2000 watts /((0.000316227766 m)^2 *pi) = 6.36619772e+9 watts /m^2


(6.36619772e+9 (watts / (m^2))) / c = 21.2353498 pascals

(6.36619772e+9 (watts / (m^2))) / (m / s) = 6366197720 pascals

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

#455950

benj wrote 

You know I've done a lot of laser cutting and welding of large steel 
plates. I don't remember seeing any heat, sparks or melted metal which 
would be evidence of energy. I sure don't want to be a fool like some of 
the kook posters here. 

This is one one I ran ... Salvagnini L1Xe 

https://youtu.be/Xktosj5UMD0 

There was Definitely Heat & Melting proven by the pounds of Dross I carted Away Regularly 

2000 watts /((0.000316227766 m)^2 *pi) = 6.36619772e+9 watts /m^2 


(6.36619772e+9 (watts / (m^2))) / c = 21.2353498 pascals 

(6.36619772e+9 (watts / (m^2))) / (m / s) = 6366197720 pascals 


Pan Oston..... they were Imbeciles



https://youtu.be/KJ12RrYQRKs

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

#455952

benj wrote 

You know I've done a lot of laser cutting and welding of large steel 
plates. I don't remember seeing any heat, sparks or melted metal which 
would be evidence of energy. I sure don't want to be a fool like some of 
the kook posters here. 

This is one one I ran ... Salvagnini L1Xe 

https://youtu.be/Xktosj5UMD0 

There was Definitely Heat & Melting proven by the pounds of Dross I carted Away Regularly 

2000 watts /((0.000316227766 m)^2 *pi) = 6.36619772e+9 watts /m^2 


(6.36619772e+9 (watts / (m^2))) / c = 21.2353498 pascals 

(6.36619772e+9 (watts / (m^2))) / (m / s) = 6366197720 pascals 


(6.36619772e+9 joules) / (6.52485 ((kg m) / s) * c) = 3.25453456


Pan Oston..... they were Imbeciles 



https://youtu.be/KJ12RrYQRKs 

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

#455887

On 14/04/2018 5:03 AM, benj wrote:
> So what is the number 1 dumbest belief in physics?
> 
> That has to be the view of the aether deniers.
> 
> Their view is that electomagnetic waves do not need a medium. To sum up 
> their religion, it is that light, heat, radio etc. are all produced by 
> "probability waves in nothing at all"!

You're conflating the phenomenon itself with the mathematics used to 
describe it. The probability wave tells us the likelihood of finding a 
particle. It is not suggested that the probability wave exists in the 
real world.

Sylvia.

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web