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 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 07:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns35jp$sg9$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393420 |
On 9/22/2016 4:54 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> numbernumber1964 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Then what is the purpose of the 27 circumference vacuum tube, >>>>>> good looks? Kind of expensive good look device? Particle >>>>>> physics is a hoax that has not produce a single useful physical >>>>>> result except scribble on paper. >>>>> >>>>> Not true. The physical results produced by colliders are the >>>>> particles emerging from the collisions. Some of them are charged >>>>> particles, and because they can therefore be detected, their >>>>> momenta can be measured. >>>>> >>>>> We have veritable mountains of such data, and one day, perhaps, >>>>> physicists will figure out a valid method of analysing them. >>>> >>>> As though no valid methods of analyzing them exist today? >>> >>> However did you manage to work that out, Slow Boy? >> >> If that's your claim, then unfortunately all you've demonstrated is >> that you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking aobut. > > You wish. > > Fact is, Slow Boy, it's you who don't know what I'm talking about. > >>>> How do you think the reconstructions at FNAL and LHC and >>>> other labs have been done? >>> >>> Path "reconstructions"? Is that the best you can do? Why aren't >>> you rubbing my face in their use to confirm variable mass? >> >> I have no interest in rubbing your face in anything. Either you >> know something about how this is done or you don't. > > Oh, I know how physicists and their gulls *think* it's done; speed > and mass values are calculated from the observed momenta, the > calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the results > are deemed confirmations of the postulate. Uh, no. Not how it's done. Want to see how it's done? Read. > > Simple, really. > > < If you don't and you want to fix that, then I can certainly >> recommend some good reading materials that will teach you how >> it's done. > > Gee. Thank you *so* much. I think you'll find that much more useful than you just "thinking for yourself" how they must be doing it. > >> You > > That's "your", Slow Boy. No, I meant what I said. "You attempting...." > >> attempting to bait me to "rub your face in it" to teach >> you here is a ridiculous and futile tactic. > > Not to teach *me*, Slow Boy: to teach you. And not *what* to > think, but *how* to think. You flatter yourself enormously. How ever do you hold your fat head up? > > But then, there's some doubt as to whether you'd get it. > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-23 22:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuba8j.vdn.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393475 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > Oh, I know how physicists and their gulls *think* it's done; speed > > and mass values are calculated from the observed momenta, the > > calculations are deemed valid, and as a consequence the results > > are deemed confirmations of the postulate. > > Uh, no. Not how it's done. That's what *I* said, Slow Boy. > Want to see how it's done? Read. It isn't done at all, Slow Boy. Those calculations use Einstein's mass equation; but it incorporates the assumption of variable mass, which means that its use for confirming the postulate is invalid. Can you spell "circular reasoning"? ----snip---- > > > You > > > > That's "your", Slow Boy. > > No, I meant what I said. "You attempting...." So you meant it. BFD. Doesn't make it good Enhlish. What it *does* do is show you up as subliterate. That might go some way to explaining your intellectual limitations. Then again, it might be a result of them. > > > attempting to bait me to "rub your face in it" to teach > > > you here is a ridiculous and futile tactic. > > > > Not to teach *me*, Slow Boy: to teach you. And not *what* to > > think, but *how* to think. > > You flatter yourself enormously. You think yourself unteachable? *sigh* That's very sad. > How ever do you hold your fat head up? Funny you should mention that: I did think of getting a bust of you, to put on a pike above Micklegate, but it seems no-one's had the bad taste to make one. So, as you subliterates say, "I doan got one". Aw, shucks. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-24 12:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns6dtj$1ndd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393541 |
On 9/23/2016 5:13 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > It isn't done at all, Slow Boy. Those calculations use Einstein's > mass equation; but it incorporates the assumption of variable mass, > which means that its use for confirming the postulate is invalid. Sorry, but no, there's no relativistic (variable) mass used in particle physics calculations. There is invariant mass: m^2 = E^2 - p^2 (in natural units). If you are unaware of how these calculations are done, you could always read, rather than assume. > > Can you spell "circular reasoning"? > > ----snip---- -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 02:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuedjk.c96.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393611 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > It isn't done at all, Slow Boy. Those calculations use Einstein's > > mass equation; but it incorporates the assumption of variable mass, > > which means that its use for confirming the postulate is invalid. > > Sorry, but no, there's no relativistic (variable) mass used in > particle physics calculations. Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? > There is invariant mass: Stuff your straw man where the sun don't shine, Slow Boy; address the matter at hand. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-25 16:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns9hbn$849$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393681 |
On 9/24/2016 9:29 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> It isn't done at all, Slow Boy. Those calculations use Einstein's >>> mass equation; but it incorporates the assumption of variable mass, >>> which means that its use for confirming the postulate is invalid. >> >> Sorry, but no, there's no relativistic (variable) mass used in >> particle physics calculations. > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to > restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to > confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? > >> There is invariant mass: > > Stuff your straw man where the sun don't shine, Slow Boy; > address the matter at hand. > > ----snip---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 02:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuh2ph.h3v.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393778 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > > > > > It isn't done at all, Slow Boy. Those calculations use Einstein's > > > > mass equation; but it incorporates the assumption of variable mass, > > > > which means that its use for confirming the postulate is invalid. > > > > > > Sorry, but no, there's no relativistic (variable) mass used in > > > particle physics calculations. > > > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > > *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to > > restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to > > confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? > > Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? Which idea? > > > There is invariant mass: Is that a repudiation of SR? ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 08:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsb77b$jri$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393801 |
On 9/25/2016 9:42 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It isn't done at all, Slow Boy. Those calculations use Einstein's >>>>> mass equation; but it incorporates the assumption of variable mass, >>>>> which means that its use for confirming the postulate is invalid. >>>> >>>> Sorry, but no, there's no relativistic (variable) mass used in >>>> particle physics calculations. >>> >>> Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, >>> colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You >>> *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to >>> restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to >>> confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? >> >> Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? > > Which idea? > >>>> There is invariant mass: > > Is that a repudiation of SR? Not at all. Do catch up. > > ----snip---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 14:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuiccr.255.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393856 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > > > > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > > > > *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to > > > > restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to > > > > confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? > > > > > > Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? > > > > Which idea? I repeat: which idea? > > > > > There is invariant mass: > > > > Is that a repudiation of SR? > > Not at all. Do catch up. "Invariant" is a very strong word, Slow Boy. You can't have invariant mass at all if you have variable mass, no matter *how* sophistically you define the conditions of variance. But you claim so much more knowledge than you allow me: perhaps you can show me how you rationalise the statement that "invariant mass" is not a repudiation of SR. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 09:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsbcao$tt5$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393871 |
On 9/26/2016 9:32 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, >>>>> colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You >>>>> *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to >>>>> restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to >>>>> confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? >>>> >>>> Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? >>> >>> Which idea? > > I repeat: which idea? That the calculations were deemed to confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate. No. > >>>>>> There is invariant mass: >>> >>> Is that a repudiation of SR? >> >> Not at all. Do catch up. > > "Invariant" is a very strong word, Slow Boy. You can't have > invariant mass at all if you have variable mass, That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. Not variable mass. Do catch up. > no matter > *how* sophistically you define the conditions of variance. > But you claim so much more knowledge than you allow me: > perhaps you can show me how you rationalise the statement > that "invariant mass" is not a repudiation of SR. In a couple of sentences, no. Would you like a reading reference you can use to catch up? > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuj6k7.cut.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393874 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > ----snip---- > > > > > > > > Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, > > > > > > colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You > > > > > > *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to > > > > > > restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to > > > > > > confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? > > > > > > > > Which idea? > > > > I repeat: which idea? > > That the calculations were deemed to confirm Einstein's variable mass > postulate. No. High school. Yes. > > > > > > > There is invariant mass: > > > > > > > > Is that a repudiation of SR? > > > > > > Not at all. Do catch up. > > > > "Invariant" is a very strong word, Slow Boy. You can't have > > invariant mass at all if you have variable mass, > > That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: you know full well, that most authors use the term "rest mass" instead. I notice that physicists have refined the language of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass); instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah. Nice little quibble. ----snip---- > > perhaps you can show me how you rationalise the statement > > that "invariant mass" is not a repudiation of SR. > > In a couple of sentences, no. I just did, above. > Would you like a reading reference you can use to catch up? Frankly, I don't know: the quibbling, hedging and cherry-picking that I see phycisists engaging in look more like sophistry than science. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 08:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsdtam$1bah$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393920 |
On 9/26/2016 5:00 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>> >>> ----snip---- >>> >>>>>>> Wrong again, Slow Boy. You need to go back in time; remember, >>>>>>> colliders have been around for about eighty years now. You >>>>>>> *do* know about that, right? And cloud chambers? And, to >>>>>>> restore the context, the calculations that were deemed to >>>>>>> confirm Einstein's variable mass postulate? >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Sorry. Where did you get that idea? >>>>> >>>>> Which idea? >>> >>> I repeat: which idea? >> >> That the calculations were deemed to confirm Einstein's variable mass >> postulate. No. > > High school. Yes. Ned, when did you go to high school? Surely you know that high school books are not famous for their scientific accuracy. > >>>>>>>> There is invariant mass: >>>>> >>>>> Is that a repudiation of SR? >>>> >>>> Not at all. Do catch up. >>> >>> "Invariant" is a very strong word, Slow Boy. You can't have >>> invariant mass at all if you have variable mass, >> >> That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. > > So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: > you know full well, that most authors use the term "rest mass" > instead. Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. > I notice that physicists have refined the language > of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases > without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass); > instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah. This has been true for decades. And it's a really important difference. Recall that you were the one that stated that physicists have been trying to validate the "variable mass" idea using accelerators, when in fact physicists do not even use the variable mass idea, let alone try to validate it. > > Nice little quibble. > > ----snip---- > >>> perhaps you can show me how you rationalise the statement >>> that "invariant mass" is not a repudiation of SR. >> >> In a couple of sentences, no. > > I just did, above. It's easy to produce a silly and wrong description. Not so easy to convey the right answer. > >> Would you like a reading reference you can use to catch up? > > Frankly, I don't know: the quibbling, hedging and cherry-picking > that I see phycisists engaging in look more like sophistry than > science. I don't know that from a high-school perspective, you would have enough basis to judge whether physicists are quibbling, hedging or cherry-picking. Why don't you read first, and THEN judge? > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 11:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnunbf3.25e.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #393986 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > I repeat: which idea? > > > > > > That the calculations were deemed to confirm Einstein's variable > > > mass postulate. No. > > > > High school. Yes. > > Ned, when did you go to high school? 1956-1960. > Surely you know that high school books are not famous for their > scientific accuracy. 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, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that blesses university texts. ----snip---- > > > That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. > > > > So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: > > you know full well, that most authors use the term "rest mass" > > instead. > > Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. Oh, boy: he said, she said. > > I notice that physicists have refined the language > > of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases > > without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass); > > instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah. > > This has been true for decades. And it's a really important difference. Yes. > Recall that you were the one that stated that physicists have been > trying to validate the "variable mass" idea using accelerators, No. I said that they *had done* decades ago. Eight decades, actually, but now I recognise that it's six. > > > > perhaps you can show me how you rationalise the statement > > > > that "invariant mass" is not a repudiation of SR. > > > > > > In a couple of sentences, no. > > > > I just did, above. > > It's easy to produce a silly and wrong description. Not so easy to > convey the right answer. That was a reference to the "refinement" statement above. > > > Would you like a reading reference you can use to catch up? > > > > Frankly, I don't know: the quibbling, hedging and cherry-picking > > that I see phycisists engaging in look more like sophistry than > > science. > > I don't know that from a high-school perspective, you would have > enough basis to judge whether physicists are quibbling, hedging or > cherry-picking. High school was my source for the information about cyclotrons and synchrotrons. And the first experimantal "confirmation" of variable mass. Little else. Except, of course, that nowadays it's not variable mass. As I said, nice little quibble. > Why don't you read first, and THEN judge? Did that. Read about Young's experiment, and the incorrect interpretation of the result. Read about Bequerel's discovery, and the incorrect conclusion that followed its correct interpretation. Read about the running around in circles that followed that until Einstein put his idea forward. Read about the mountains of postulates that have been piled atop it and each other in the century or so since. I've had enough of pseudo-science. Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsgjsk$1kfi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394105 |
On 9/28/2016 6:47 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> I repeat: which idea? >>>> >>>> That the calculations were deemed to confirm Einstein's variable >>>> mass postulate. No. >>> >>> High school. Yes. >> >> Ned, when did you go to high school? > > 1956-1960. So you are 73 or 74 now, and your time in high school was 56 years ago. I think you're going to find that a lot of work has been done since the time you went to high school. > >> Surely you know that high school books are not famous for their >> scientific accuracy. > > Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", I beg your pardon? What are you quoting from? I find it very sensible. > and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a geometric > theoren, The geometry of spacetime IS a physical theory. I don't know how you are distinguishing a "physical theory" from "just a geometric theoren [sic]". What do you think are the particular features of a physical theory that "just a geometric theoren" would not satisfy? > and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a > means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string > theory, Hold on, several things to correct here. Do not confuse quantum mechanics with QED. QED is a theory of the electromagnetic interaction, and GR is a theory of the gravitational interaction. There is no need to reconcile QED with GR because they are talking about two completely different interactions. Second, there are no outstanding problems with QED that I'm aware of. Third, regarding a quantum theory of gravity, it is true that this is an unsolved problem. I believe that just because there are still open questions in physics does not mean that the theories of physics are dismal failures. Are you saying that theories in physics can only be considered successful once ALL outstanding questions are answered and there is nothing left to do? > of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of > matter, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that > blesses university texts. > > ----snip---- > >>>> That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. >>> >>> So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: >>> you know full well, that most authors use the term "rest mass" >>> instead. >> >> Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. > > Oh, boy: he said, she said. No, this isn't between you and me. This is between what you say and what scientists actually say. Likewise, the matter about the history of colliders wasn't a disagreement between you and me. It was something that was easily resolved by you just taking the time to look up some FACTS. Same thing here. > >>> I notice that physicists have refined the language >>> of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases >>> without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass); >>> instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah. >> >> This has been true for decades. And it's a really important difference. > > Yes. > >> Recall that you were the one that stated that physicists have been >> trying to validate the "variable mass" idea using accelerators, > > No. I said that they *had done* decades ago. Eight decades, actually, > but now I recognise that it's six. But as you probably now recognize, they weren't validating "variable mass" six decades ago either. Because six decades ago, they were measuring INVARIANT mass (or if you prefer, rest mass), which does not vary. Just correcting a long series of mistakes, Ned. > >>>>> perhaps you can show me how you rationalise the statement >>>>> that "invariant mass" is not a repudiation of SR. >>>> >>>> In a couple of sentences, no. >>> >>> I just did, above. >> >> It's easy to produce a silly and wrong description. Not so easy to >> convey the right answer. > > That was a reference to the "refinement" statement above. > >>>> Would you like a reading reference you can use to catch up? >>> >>> Frankly, I don't know: the quibbling, hedging and cherry-picking >>> that I see phycisists engaging in look more like sophistry than >>> science. >> >> I don't know that from a high-school perspective, you would have >> enough basis to judge whether physicists are quibbling, hedging or >> cherry-picking. > > High school was my source for the information about cyclotrons and > synchrotrons. And the first experimantal "confirmation" of variable > mass. Little else. > > Except, of course, that nowadays it's not variable mass. As I said, > nice little quibble. Not just a quibble. Nothing variable about invariant mass. > >> Why don't you read first, and THEN judge? > > Did that. > > Read about Young's experiment, and the incorrect interpretation > of the result. Read about Bequerel's discovery, and the incorrect > conclusion that followed its correct interpretation. Yes. So? Is it your expectation that science moves without mistakes? > > Read about the running around in circles that followed that until > Einstein put his idea forward. > > Read about the mountains of postulates that have been piled atop > it and each other in the century or so since. Well, first of all, maybe the mountain isn't as tall as you think it is. For example, you claimed Einstein made a postulate of "variable mass", which in fact he did not, and which physicists do not use. They use rest mass or, as it's more commonly labeled, invariant mass, which does not vary at all. So there's one of your postulates that has just puffled into thin air. What are some of the others you think have been piled up? > > I've had enough of pseudo-science. What do you think "pseudo-science" means? Are you claiming that any scientific result that is found to be in error is pseudo-science? > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 00:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnuoocg.hqc.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394119 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > Ned, when did you go to high school? > > > > 1956-1960. > > So you are 73 or 74 now, and your time in high school was 56 years ago. > I think you're going to find that a lot of work has been done since the > time you went to high school. I think you'll find that if you'd read what I say with your eyes open, you'd be aware that I haven't been comatose since high school. > > > Surely you know that high school books are not famous for their > > > scientific accuracy. > > > > Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", > > I beg your pardon? What are you quoting from? 2013/14 BBC documentary "Faster than the Speed of Light?". Statement made by Prof. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College, London, at a point approximately 44:40 from the start. I misquoted him. His exact words are: "Obviously this result [FTL neutrinoes] contradicts what you find in textbooks, but if you're actually working in the frontier of physics - if you're really trying to find new theories, this is not as tragic as you might think. Its a crisis, but we need a crisis: there's a lot of things in physics, in those textbooks, which don't really make any sense". > I find it very sensible. The separate theories that make up what is called "current theory" are mathematically valid. "Mathematically valid" is not synonymous with "sensible". They are also counter-intuitive, and *that* is contra-sensible. > > and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a > > geometric theoren, > > The geometry of spacetime IS a physical theory. I don't know how > you are distinguishing a "physical theory" from "just a geometric > theoren [sic]". What do you think are the particular features of > a physical theory that "just a geometric theoren" would not satisfy? A physical theory needs a postulate for matter. A geometrical theorem doesn't. Calling SR a physical theory is no more sensible than calling Pythagoras's theorem a physical theory, > > and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a > > means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string > > theory, > > Hold on, several things to correct here. Do not confuse quantum > mechanics with QED. QED is a theory of the electromagnetic interaction, > and GR is a theory of the gravitational interaction. There is no need to > reconcile QED with GR because they are talking about two completely > different interactions. Okay, string theory is a failure as a means of reconciling GR and quantum mechanics. > Second, there are no outstanding problems with QED that I'm aware of. Without string theory it doesn't have a postulate for matter. > Third, regarding a quantum theory of gravity, it is true that this is > an unsolved problem. I believe that just because there are still open > questions in physics does not mean that the theories of physics are > dismal failures. Well, gee. Does that mean that the open question in the theory I presented some time back is not a fatal obstruction to its being considered worth an honest appraisal? > Are you saying that theories in physics can only be > considered successful once ALL outstanding questions are answered and > there is nothing left to do? No. I'm saying "string theory is a failure as a means of reconciling GR and quantim mechanics". It's not what I *did* say, but it makes the same point, which I note you've avoided responding to; ie, university textbooks are no better than high school text books when it comes to scientific accuracy. > > of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of > > matter, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that > > blesses university texts. There's the point. See it? > > > > > That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. > > > > > > > > So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: > > > > you know full well that most authors use the term "rest mass" > > > > instead. > > > > > > Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. > > > > Oh, boy: he said, she said. > > No, this isn't between you and me. Yes it is. "Some do, most don't": YOUR words. Without an exhaustive survey of all writings on the subject, it's entirely a matter of your opinion vs mine as to which group is the more numerous. ----snip---- > > > > I notice that physicists have refined the language > > > > of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases > > > > without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass); > > > > instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah. > > > > > > This has been true for decades. And it's a really important difference. > > > > Yes. > > > > > Recall that you were the one that stated that physicists have been > > > trying to validate the "variable mass" idea using accelerators, > > > > No. I said that they *had done* decades ago. Eight decades, actually, > > but now I recognise that it's six. > > But as you probably now recognize, they weren't validating "variable > mass" six decades ago either. Publications then and since spoke of "variable mass". The quibbling, which appears to date back to Einstein himself, sometimes appears to be over now that the variable mass notion is demonstrably untenable (but see paragraph before snip, below). That does not change the process engaged in six or maybe five decades ago. It remains invalid. > Because six decades ago, they were > measuring Not measuring. > INVARIANT mass (or if you prefer, rest mass), which > does not vary. That contradicts the statements published back then. > Just correcting a long series of mistakes, Ned. That remains to be seen. And verified as my mistakes, as opposed to misinformative publication. The docco I quoted above is a case in point: its narrator is a mathematician (commentators throughout are phycicists). Variable mass is part of his explanation of SR (at a point approximately 11:50 from the start). ----snip---- > > > I don't know that from a high-school perspective, you would have > > > enough basis to judge whether physicists are quibbling, hedging or > > > cherry-picking. > > > > High school was my source for the information about cyclotrons and > > synchrotrons. And the first experimantal "confirmation" of variable > > mass. Little else. > > > > Except, of course, that nowadays it's not variable mass. As I said, > > nice little quibble. > > Not just a quibble. Back then, in the context of those calculations, it was stated as variable mass. Altering the term now is quibbling. At best. > Nothing variable about invariant mass. Wasn't about that term: was about "variable mass" becoming "variable momentum". > > > Why don't you read first, and THEN judge? > > > > Did that. > > > > Read about Young's experiment, and the incorrect interpretation > > of the result. Read about Bequerel's discovery, and the incorrect > > conclusion that followed its correct interpretation. > > Yes. So? You don't question the statements "incorrect interpretation" and "incorrect conclusion"? > Is it your expectation that science moves without mistakes? I expect that when science runs into an incorrigible difficulty, as when Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, scientists will take a long hard look at the "knowledge" the difficulty conflicts with. > > Read about the running around in circles that followed that until > > Einstein put his idea forward. > > > > Read about the mountains of postulates that have been piled atop > > it and each other in the century or so since. > > Well, first of all, maybe the mountain isn't as tall as you think it is. > For example, you claimed Einstein made a postulate of "variable mass", > which in fact he did not, So it became variable momentum: relativistically variable, not mechanically variable. The postulate count is unchanged. > and which physicists do not use. They use rest > mass or, as it's more commonly labeled, invariant mass, which does not > vary at all. So there's one of your postulates that has just puffled > into thin air. Relativistically variable momentum. The postulate count is unchanged. > 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? Light speed as a constant within a given medium. Light speed as a limit (a different one in every medium). Light speed as inversely proportional to the density of the medium. The curvilinear universe. Mass as distorting the contimuum. Time as a dimension of the continuum. Time dilation. Red shift as a measure of distance. The expanding universe. The big bang. The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). Other universes (FYI that's a contradiction in terms). Tachyons and the tachyon "universe". Particle entanglement (Schroedinger's cat) Dark matter. Dark energy. 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. The problem emerging from Young's experiment and Bequerel's discovery is where Physics left science and became a pseudo-science. Until physicists face up to that problem, their pronouncements are not credible. ----snip---- Ned
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsjaj1$1oeg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394199 |
On 9/28/2016 7:34 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>> Ned, when did you go to high school? >>> >>> 1956-1960. >> >> So you are 73 or 74 now, and your time in high school was 56 years ago. >> I think you're going to find that a lot of work has been done since the >> time you went to high school. > > I think you'll find that if you'd read what I say with your eyes open, > you'd be aware that I haven't been comatose since high school. Let's just say you have some catching up to do. As well as some misunderstandings corrected. > >>>> Surely you know that high school books are not famous for their >>>> scientific accuracy. >>> >>> Given that physicists admit that "what we teach doesn't make sense", >> >> I beg your pardon? What are you quoting from? > > 2013/14 BBC documentary "Faster than the Speed of Light?". > Statement made by Prof. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College, > London, at a point approximately 44:40 from the start. > > I misquoted him. His exact words are: "Obviously this result > [FTL neutrinoes] contradicts what you find in textbooks, but > if you're actually working in the frontier of physics - if > you're really trying to find new theories, this is not as > tragic as you might think. Its a crisis, but we need a crisis: > there's a lot of things in physics, in those textbooks, which > don't really make any sense". Pithy comment. Like many made in TV shows aimed at laypeople, which have to be taken with a grain of salt. Did he cite specifically what doesn't make sense? > >> I find it very sensible. > > The separate theories that make up what is called "current theory" > are mathematically valid. "Mathematically valid" is not synonymous > with "sensible". They are also counter-intuitive, and *that* is > contra-sensible. Here's where the rub is. Perhaps you have an expectation that physics theories should be intuitive. Physicists don't. The metric for success that physicists use for a theory is that they make accurate predictions of behaviors, whether the premise of the theory is intuitive or not. In general, people's intuition is misleading and is no good at ferreting out what's real in nature. > >>> and their position that SR is not a physical theory, just a >>> geometric theoren, >> >> The geometry of spacetime IS a physical theory. I don't know how >> you are distinguishing a "physical theory" from "just a geometric >> theoren [sic]". What do you think are the particular features of >> a physical theory that "just a geometric theoren" would not satisfy? > > A physical theory needs a postulate for matter. Is this YOUR claim? Or are you saying that it's a claim by physicists? If it's YOUR claim, then a) where does it come from, and b) why do you think scientists would agree it's needed? > A geometrical > theorem doesn't. Calling SR a physical theory is no more sensible > than calling Pythagoras's theorem a physical theory, > >>> and their recognition that string theory is a failure as a >>> means of reconciling GR and QED, and the clear lack, without string >>> theory, >> >> Hold on, several things to correct here. Do not confuse quantum >> mechanics with QED. QED is a theory of the electromagnetic interaction, >> and GR is a theory of the gravitational interaction. There is no need to >> reconcile QED with GR because they are talking about two completely >> different interactions. > > Okay, string theory is a failure as a means of reconciling GR and > quantum mechanics. Yes, I agree. > >> Second, there are no outstanding problems with QED that I'm aware of. > > Without string theory it doesn't have a postulate for matter. Again, is this YOUR requirement? What is this "postulate for matter" that you keep referring to? What question would be answered by it? And do you know about the Higgs mechanism? > >> Third, regarding a quantum theory of gravity, it is true that this is >> an unsolved problem. I believe that just because there are still open >> questions in physics does not mean that the theories of physics are >> dismal failures. > > Well, gee. Does that mean that the open question in the theory I > presented some time back is not a fatal obstruction to its being > considered worth an honest appraisal? Fatal obstruction? No. Let me put it a different way. Do you think that if YOU PERSONALLY have an open question, then a) why is that open question important to physicists? and b) what makes you so sure that it's an open question that hasn't been answered? and c) if it's not really an open question that hasn't been answered, and in fact it's already been answered, then on whom does the responsibility lie for you to become aware of it? > >> Are you saying that theories in physics can only be >> considered successful once ALL outstanding questions are answered and >> there is nothing left to do? > > No. I'm saying "string theory is a failure as a means of reconciling > GR and quantim mechanics". Yes, I agree. This means there is an open question about how to reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. So? > > It's not what I *did* say, but it makes the same point, which I note > you've avoided responding to; ie, university textbooks are no better > than high school text books when it comes to scientific accuracy. I disagree with that statement. The pithy statement from the TV personality notwithstanding. Note also that it depends on whether you're talking about a textbook from 1960 or one from 2015. > >>> of a theoretical basis in QED for the manifestation of >>> matter, I don't see that as terribly different from the fame that >>> blesses university texts. > > There's the point. See it? What "fame"? What "blessing"? > >>>>>> That's why "invariant mass" is used as a term, Ned. >>>>> >>>>> So. the technical term card again. This time it's spurious: >>>>> you know full well that most authors use the term "rest mass" >>>>> instead. >>>> >>>> Actually no, they don't. Some do, most don't. >>> >>> Oh, boy: he said, she said. >> >> No, this isn't between you and me. > > Yes it is. "Some do, most don't": YOUR words. Without an > exhaustive survey of all writings on the subject, it's > entirely a matter of your opinion vs mine as to which > group is the more numerous. No, it isn't. The exhaustive catalog of writings is out there. All one has to do is to go out there and look through them. These are what are called "documented facts". If there is a dispute over what the documented facts are, then all that's needed is for both parties to go research the documented facts. I believe I've read more textbooks than you on this subject, given what you've said already is the basis for your statements. I don't owe you a count. You owe yourself a better look at documented facts. > > ----snip---- > >>>>> I notice that physicists have refined the language >>>>> of relativity theory: nowadays they don't say that mass increases >>>>> without limit as speed increases toward c (variable mass); >>>>> instead they say that momentum increases blah blah blah. >>>> >>>> This has been true for decades. And it's a really important difference. >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> Recall that you were the one that stated that physicists have been >>>> trying to validate the "variable mass" idea using accelerators, >>> >>> No. I said that they *had done* decades ago. Eight decades, actually, >>> but now I recognise that it's six. >> >> But as you probably now recognize, they weren't validating "variable >> mass" six decades ago either. > > Publications then and since spoke of "variable mass". WHICH publications? Your high school book from 1960? > The quibbling, > which appears to date back to Einstein himself, sometimes appears > to be over now that the variable mass notion is demonstrably > untenable (but see paragraph before snip, below). That does not > change the process engaged in six or maybe five decades ago. > It remains invalid. > >> Because six decades ago, they were >> measuring > > Not measuring. > >> INVARIANT mass (or if you prefer, rest mass), which >> does not vary. > > That contradicts the statements published back then. In your high school book? > >> Just correcting a long series of mistakes, Ned. > > That remains to be seen. And verified as my mistakes, as opposed > to misinformative publication. > > The docco I quoted above is a case in point: its narrator is a > mathematician (commentators throughout are phycicists). Variable > mass is part of his explanation of SR (at a point approximately > 11:50 from the start). I'm going to point out that television shows are not textbooks. Nor are they intended to be used as textbooks. If you complaint is that television shows and a high school book from 1960 have given you the impression that variable mass was a central principle used by physicists, then I'm just going to suggest you need to up your game on your reference materials. > > ----snip---- > >>>> I don't know that from a high-school perspective, you would have >>>> enough basis to judge whether physicists are quibbling, hedging or >>>> cherry-picking. >>> >>> High school was my source for the information about cyclotrons and >>> synchrotrons. And the first experimantal "confirmation" of variable >>> mass. Little else. >>> >>> Except, of course, that nowadays it's not variable mass. As I said, >>> nice little quibble. >> >> Not just a quibble. > > Back then, in the context of those calculations, it was stated as > variable mass. Altering the term now is quibbling. At best. > >> Nothing variable about invariant mass. > > Wasn't about that term: was about "variable mass" becoming > "variable momentum". > >>>> Why don't you read first, and THEN judge? >>> >>> Did that. >>> >>> Read about Young's experiment, and the incorrect interpretation >>> of the result. Read about Bequerel's discovery, and the incorrect >>> conclusion that followed its correct interpretation. >> >> Yes. So? > > You don't question the statements "incorrect interpretation" > and "incorrect conclusion"? > >> Is it your expectation that science moves without mistakes? > > I expect that when science runs into an incorrigible difficulty, > as when Bequerel discovered the photovoltaic effect, scientists > will take a long hard look at the "knowledge" the difficulty > conflicts with. Which they do. Which is how things like quantum mechanics and relativity came about to begin with -- questioning the "knowledge" the observation comes in conflict with. Now, what observation today do you think is in conflict with current "knowledge"? Be specific. > >>> Read about the running around in circles that followed that until >>> Einstein put his idea forward. >>> >>> Read about the mountains of postulates that have been piled atop >>> it and each other in the century or so since. >> >> Well, first of all, maybe the mountain isn't as tall as you think it is. >> For example, you claimed Einstein made a postulate of "variable mass", >> which in fact he did not, > > So it became variable momentum: relativistically variable, not > mechanically variable. The postulate count is unchanged. Whaaaaat? What do those words even mean? "mechanically variable", "relativistically variable"? > >> and which physicists do not use. They use rest >> mass or, as it's more commonly labeled, invariant mass, which does not >> vary at all. So there's one of your postulates that has just puffled >> into thin air. > > Relativistically variable momentum. The postulate count is unchanged. Momentum has been variable since Newton defined it. What do you think is new? > >> 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. > > Light speed as a constant within a given medium. It's not. Doesn't exist as a postulate. > Light speed as a limit (a different one in every medium). Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > Light speed as inversely proportional to the density of the medium. Such a law doesn't exist. > The curvilinear universe. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > Mass as distorting the contimuum. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > Time as a dimension of the continuum. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > Time dilation. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > Red shift as a measure of distance. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > The expanding universe. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > The big bang. Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > The 10/11-dimension universe (string theory). That's a hypothesis, not a postulate. It's not panning out so well. So? > 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. Are you interested in the meaning of the word as they use it, or are you just going to dismiss that meaning as "just not acceptable"? > Tachyons and the tachyon "universe". That's a hypothesis. So? > Particle entanglement (Schroedinger's cat) Verified by experiment. Is this a problem? > Dark matter. That's a hypothesis. So? > Dark energy. That's a hypothesis. So? > > 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? > > The problem emerging from Young's experiment and Bequerel's > discovery is where Physics left science and became a > pseudo-science. Until physicists face up to that problem, > their pronouncements are not credible. > > ----snip---- > > Ned > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 01:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurhaj.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394255 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: > > > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > > > Ned, when did you go to high school? > > > > > > > > 1956-1960. > > > > > > So you are 73 or 74 now, and your time in high school was 56 years > > > ago. I think you're going to find that a lot of work has been done > > > since the time you went to high school. > > > > I think you'll find that if you'd read what I say with your eyes open, > > you'd be aware that I haven't been comatose since high school. > > Let's just say you have some catching up to do. As well as some > misunderstandings corrected. No. Let's just say that you're arrogant and prejudicial and you refuse to read in a connected manner. ----snip---- Med
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 07:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsll7p$134p$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394312 |
On 9/29/2016 8:52 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>>> Ned, when did you go to high school? >>>>> >>>>> 1956-1960. >>>> >>>> So you are 73 or 74 now, and your time in high school was 56 years >>>> ago. I think you're going to find that a lot of work has been done >>>> since the time you went to high school. >>> >>> I think you'll find that if you'd read what I say with your eyes open, >>> you'd be aware that I haven't been comatose since high school. >> >> Let's just say you have some catching up to do. As well as some >> misunderstandings corrected. > > No. Let's just say that you're arrogant and prejudicial and you refuse > to read in a connected manner. Ned, either you have facts right or you don't. Over the course of the last few days, you've demonstrated that you have a lot of facts wrong. We could recapitulate them if you'd like. The incorrect statements you say are the way that things were presented to you in high school back around 1960. This somehow makes them right? What would you normally do, Ned, when you discover that you have long held a mistaken view of something? Would you take steps to correct that? > > ----snip---- > > Med > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 02:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnurj3g.vca.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394255 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > Odd Bodkin wrote: ----snip---- > > > I beg your pardon? What are you quoting from? > > > > 2013/14 BBC documentary "Faster than the Speed of Light?". > > Statement made by Prof. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College, > > London, at a point approximately 44:40 from the start. > > > > I misquoted him. His exact words are: "Obviously this result > > [FTL neutrinoes] contradicts what you find in textbooks, but > > if you're actually working in the frontier of physics - if > > you're really trying to find new theories, this is not as > > tragic as you might think. Its a crisis, but we need a crisis: > > there's a lot of things in physics, in those textbooks, which > > don't really make any sense". > > Pithy comment. Like many made in TV shows aimed at laypeople, > which have to be taken with a grain of salt. Do you claim to be a physicist? If you do, there you are: you have yourself given an example of a hedging phycisist. TV program or not, Prof. Joao Magueijo stated unequivocably that there's a lor of things in physics that don't make sense, and *he* is credible, because *he* is a real physicist. > Did he cite > specifically what doesn't make sense? You have, as I said, his exact words. ----snip---- > > > Just correcting a long series of mistakes, Ned. > > > > That remains to be seen. And verified as my mistakes, as opposed > > to misinformative publication. > > > > The docco I quoted above is a case in point: its narrator is a > > mathematician (commentators throughout are phycicists). Variable > > mass is part of his explanation of SR (at a point approximately > > 11:50 from the start). > > I'm going to point out that television shows are not textbooks. That docco is no mere television show. All of the participants are accredited scientists. > Nor are they intended to be used as textbooks. Nor did I use it so. I gave it as showing up the incoherence in physics. An accredited, tenured mathematicdian and a whole panel of accredited physicists, some tenured, some working at CERN or Gran Sasso, have come together in a presentation which states unequivocably that current physical theory is (at least partly) nonsense, and which perpetuates the confusion between mass and momentumk. Instead of tryimg to make pathetic brownie points at my expense, try cleaning up your own act. It stinks. ----snip---- Med
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 07:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nsllo0$14o5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394314 |
On 9/29/2016 9:22 PM, Ned Latham wrote: > Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>> I beg your pardon? What are you quoting from? >>> >>> 2013/14 BBC documentary "Faster than the Speed of Light?". >>> Statement made by Prof. Joao Magueijo of Imperial College, >>> London, at a point approximately 44:40 from the start. >>> >>> I misquoted him. His exact words are: "Obviously this result >>> [FTL neutrinoes] contradicts what you find in textbooks, but >>> if you're actually working in the frontier of physics - if >>> you're really trying to find new theories, this is not as >>> tragic as you might think. Its a crisis, but we need a crisis: >>> there's a lot of things in physics, in those textbooks, which >>> don't really make any sense". >> >> Pithy comment. Like many made in TV shows aimed at laypeople, >> which have to be taken with a grain of salt. > > Do you claim to be a physicist? If you do, there you are: > you have yourself given an example of a hedging phycisist. > TV program or not, Prof. Joao Magueijo stated unequivocably > that there's a lor of things in physics that don't make sense, > and *he* is credible, because *he* is a real physicist. > >> Did he cite >> specifically what doesn't make sense? > > You have, as I said, his exact words. So he did not. So are you saying then that you are certain he would agree with you that curvilinear space is one of those things that does not make sense? Do you think he would agree with you that quantum entanglement does not make sense? What gives you the room to interpret this statement as you please? > > ----snip---- > >>>> Just correcting a long series of mistakes, Ned. >>> >>> That remains to be seen. And verified as my mistakes, as opposed >>> to misinformative publication. >>> >>> The docco I quoted above is a case in point: its narrator is a >>> mathematician (commentators throughout are phycicists). Variable >>> mass is part of his explanation of SR (at a point approximately >>> 11:50 from the start). >> >> I'm going to point out that television shows are not textbooks. > > That docco is no mere television show. All of the participants are > accredited scientists. And when an accredited science like Neil deGrasse Tyson gets on the air in a show like Cosmos and waxes eloquent about "the edge of space and time", what do you think his intent is? To be motivational and inspirational, to try to use words to impart a sense of wonder, or to try to convey accurately the state of the universe? I don't think you understand what television documentaries are supposed to do. > >> Nor are they intended to be used as textbooks. > > Nor did I use it so. I gave it as showing up the incoherence in > physics. WHAT incoherence? Can you point to a PHYSICS TEXTBOOK that says "some of what we're conveying here makes no sense"? You are watching a TV SHOW! > > An accredited, tenured mathematicdian and a whole panel of > accredited physicists, some tenured, some working at CERN > or Gran Sasso, have come together in a presentation which > states unequivocably that current physical theory is (at > least partly) nonsense, and which perpetuates the confusion > between mass and momentumk. Sorry, but no such confusion between mass and momentum was cited by them. That's completely on you. > > Instead of tryimg to make pathetic brownie points at my expense, > try cleaning up your own act. It stinks. > > ----snip---- > > Med > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnussen.kqk.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| In reply to | #394362 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > accredited physicists, some tenured, some working at CERN > > or Gran Sasso, have come together in a presentation which > > states unequivocably that current physical theory is (at > > least partly) nonsense, and which perpetuates the confusion > > between mass and momentumk. > > Sorry, but no such confusion between mass and momentum was cited by > them. That's completely on you. Learn to read. I said "perpetuated" not "cited". ----snip----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web