Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408751 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800 |
| Last post | 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 177 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 11:30 -0800
Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-10 11:52 -0800
Re: Cretin Robert Winn continues to spam Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-10 21:08 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 14:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 12:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:15 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:24 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:45 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:14 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:39 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:21 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:44 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 15:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 17:58 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:21 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:07 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 08:41 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 16:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 20:40 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:17 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 22:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:18 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 17:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 15:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:57 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 18:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-10 23:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time stringduality@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 05:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 06:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 09:41 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:43 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 12:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 14:36 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 21:52 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 07:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 08:38 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 10:42 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 17:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 23:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 17:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 07:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 13:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 14:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 03:42 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 23:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-15 15:19 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 07:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 07:53 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:28 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:03 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:30 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 14:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:42 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:32 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 15:16 -0800
Re: velocity and time mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-12 23:20 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 07:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 09:20 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-13 08:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 11:26 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-14 18:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:59 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 14:28 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-15 20:19 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 00:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 05:53 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 16:32 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 08:07 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-16 12:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-16 21:18 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:24 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 15:22 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-16 06:39 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 08:35 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 09:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 12:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 11:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:14 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:10 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:34 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:55 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 06:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:24 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 09:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 18:10 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 13:47 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 04:44 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 22:59 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 04:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:30 -0800
Re: velocity and time Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-19 10:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 15:47 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 07:32 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-19 16:53 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 11:02 -0800
Re: velocity and time Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-18 18:36 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 10:50 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:17 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 13:19 -0600
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:11 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-17 21:01 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 14:13 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 00:35 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 18:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:09 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 21:09 -0800
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:13 +0100
Re: velocity and time John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-17 18:37 -0800
Re: velocity and time Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-18 04:03 +0100
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-17 19:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:47 -0600
Re: velocity and time Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:46 -0600
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 07:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 07:55 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:01 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 09:08 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 10:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-11 12:15 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:54 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 08:51 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 10:12 -0800
Re: velocity and time Ed Lake <detect@newsguy.com> - 2017-02-12 12:06 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:35 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:04 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 21:46 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 15:05 -0800
Re: velocity and time numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:31 -0800
Re: velocity and time Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 16:31 -0800
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-17 11:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac4dad91-c26d-4c42-b0e4-fbeb0b6b0837@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409680 |
On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/17/2017 10:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > I would suspect that a lot more saddles are being made today than were being made in the 1800's. > > There are a lot more horses being used for riding today. Back then there were isolated ranches > > where there were horses. Today there are 3.5 acre mini-farms with 5 or six horses each. > > Here's a picture of New York City in 1900, Robert. > https://simplymarvelous.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/easter-morning-1900-new-york-city_s-fifth-avenue1.jpg > > I think that what you suspect is generally wrong. Well, I don't think so. There were a lot more horses in the west than in New York City, and there are a lot more today. > > Back in 2007 I was welding on some semi-trailers for Ammon Bundy at a place called Reload, Inc., > > in Phoenix, Arizona, where they unload train cars. Ammon and I looked at all of the lumber at that > > place. There was no lumber there from the United States. It was all from Canada. So explain to > > me why all of the lumber being shipped into Phoenix, Arizona, is from Canada. > > At one time there were sawmills right here in Arizona. That was before most of the trees in Arizona > > burned up in forest fires. > > Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today > than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. > > > You tell me scientists are wonderful, competent people. I do not see evidence of it. > > I try not to generalize a group of people that share a common > characteristic. This is called bigotry in this country. Bigotry, you say? So if an individual person says something unfavorable about a group, that is bad, but if a group says something unfavorable about an individual, it is good. I think you should have been a psychiatrist. You should be charging money for these decisions. > > I try to talk them, and all I get back for twenty years is profanity and insults. > > And you don't suppose that the negative reaction you get from a lot of > different kinds of people has anything to do with you? > No, it has nothing to do with me. They talk the same way to each other. > > So I just tend to dismiss them today. There is nothing there, nobody home. > > Now maybe that will change. Maybe students now in school will become serious about science > > and want it to be more than the propaganda of today. But what we have now is propaganda, > > and we have to be honest about it. Scientists have an agenda. > > They are the enemies of working people like me. > > If you want to declare them your enemy, then I suppose that's your > prerogative. Sounds kind of hateful to me. > Yes, I know. You feel that you have to be the protector and defender of scientists because I am such a hateful person.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 10:57 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o89ud4$hiv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409696 |
On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >> Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today >> than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. > Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills > in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. I believe that the lumber industry includes more people than are actually working in the sawmills. After all, the sawmills are not on trucks, carried around to where the trees are. If you think really hard, you may remember that about the work. There were 17,410 physicists and astronomers in the US in May 2015. There were 38,700 logging workers in the US in May 2015. This included 5840 fallers, 27,290 logging equipment operators, 2740 log graders and scalers, and 2830 "logging workers, all other". You can look it up if you like. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Seems to me that the logging industry is in better shape than the physics industry, at least according to those stats. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 13:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2d15dca4-8151-492a-9a09-0877357b6c7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409804 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >> Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today > >> than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. > > Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills > > in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. > > I believe that the lumber industry includes more people than are > actually working in the sawmills. After all, the sawmills are not on > trucks, carried around to where the trees are. If you think really hard, > you may remember that about the work. > > There were 17,410 physicists and astronomers in the US in May 2015. > There were 38,700 logging workers in the US in May 2015. > This included 5840 fallers, 27,290 logging equipment operators, 2740 log > graders and scalers, and 2830 "logging workers, all other". > You can look it up if you like. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. > > Seems to me that the logging industry is in better shape than the > physics industry, at least according to those stats. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, the logging industry is in pitiful shape, as anyone who was ever in it knows. What you neglect in your assessment is all of the people in various industries who use physics in their work who are not called physicists. The County I came from in Montana employed almost everyone in logging or sawmill work. We would also include the people employed by the Forest Service in this number. Today there are no sawmills there. If any trees are being cut, they are from private land, and there is very little private land in Lincoln County, Montana. Almost all of the land is Forest Service land. Lincoln County is about one and a half times the size of the state of Delaware and has about 19,000 people. Delaware has about a million people. The main two industries in Lincoln County now are mesothelioma lawsuits and collecting social security benefits. There used to be an asbestos mine at Libby, Montana. So now tell me something. I went to Montana State University for a year. There were a lot of people at that University enrolled in the physics curriculum when I was there, plus all of the people taking engineering, etc., who had to take a lot of physics classes. What do all of those people do after they graduate if there are only 17,000 jobs for them in the United States?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 15:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8aee5$1dkk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409862 |
On 2/18/2017 3:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>> Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today >>>> than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. >>> Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills >>> in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. >> >> I believe that the lumber industry includes more people than are >> actually working in the sawmills. After all, the sawmills are not on >> trucks, carried around to where the trees are. If you think really hard, >> you may remember that about the work. >> >> There were 17,410 physicists and astronomers in the US in May 2015. >> There were 38,700 logging workers in the US in May 2015. >> This included 5840 fallers, 27,290 logging equipment operators, 2740 log >> graders and scalers, and 2830 "logging workers, all other". >> You can look it up if you like. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. >> >> Seems to me that the logging industry is in better shape than the >> physics industry, at least according to those stats. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, the logging industry is in pitiful shape, as anyone who was ever in it knows. > What you neglect in your assessment is all of the people in various industries who > use physics in their work who are not called physicists. Then they are not physicists. Likewise, accountants and grocery store clerks who use mathematics are not mathematicians. Taxi drivers and park rangers who use maps are not geographers. And people like me who use wood are not loggers or sawmill employees. > The County I came from in Montana employed almost everyone in logging or sawmill work. > We would also include the people employed by the Forest Service in this number. > Today there are no sawmills there. If any trees are being cut, they are from private > land, and there is very little private land in Lincoln County, Montana. Almost > all of the land is Forest Service land. Lincoln County is about one and a half > times the size of the state of Delaware and has about 19,000 people. Delaware has > about a million people. The main two industries in Lincoln County now are mesothelioma > lawsuits and collecting social security benefits. There used to be an asbestos mine at Libby, Montana. Yes, I'm aware of that. The largest employment in Lincoln County is the EPA, because the whole county pretty much is an EPA Superfund cleanup site, because the owners of the mine contaminated everything from soccer practice fields to rainwater retention ponds. > So now tell me something. I went to Montana State University for a year. There were a > lot of people at that University enrolled in the physics curriculum when I was there, plus all > of the people taking engineering, etc., who had to take a lot of physics classes. What do all of > those people do after they graduate if there are only 17,000 jobs for them in the United States? > This may come as a surprise to you because you only went for a year. But most schools require you to take a broad spectrum of classes whether you intend to work in that area or not. All students planning to go into medicine, for example, are required to take physics as an undergraduate. The same is true for geologists, chemists, engineers, biologists, pharmacists, and a whole host of other groups. There may be several hundred students taking physics classes at a typical university, and only a dozen or so of them are physics majors. Of the undergraduate physics majors, only a small fraction of those will continue on with graduate studies to make physics a career. As an example, did you take an English course at Montana State? Are you now an English teacher? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 14:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1c95cf1d-c17e-4228-ac97-022b54702baa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409865 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/18/2017 3:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>> Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today > >>>> than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. > >>> Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills > >>> in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. > >> > >> I believe that the lumber industry includes more people than are > >> actually working in the sawmills. After all, the sawmills are not on > >> trucks, carried around to where the trees are. If you think really hard, > >> you may remember that about the work. > >> > >> There were 17,410 physicists and astronomers in the US in May 2015. > >> There were 38,700 logging workers in the US in May 2015. > >> This included 5840 fallers, 27,290 logging equipment operators, 2740 log > >> graders and scalers, and 2830 "logging workers, all other". > >> You can look it up if you like. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. > >> > >> Seems to me that the logging industry is in better shape than the > >> physics industry, at least according to those stats. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Well, the logging industry is in pitiful shape, as anyone who was ever in it knows. > > What you neglect in your assessment is all of the people in various industries who > > use physics in their work who are not called physicists. > > Then they are not physicists. Likewise, accountants and grocery store > clerks who use mathematics are not mathematicians. Taxi drivers and park > rangers who use maps are not geographers. And people like me who use > wood are not loggers or sawmill employees. > > > The County I came from in Montana employed almost everyone in logging or sawmill work. > > We would also include the people employed by the Forest Service in this number. > > Today there are no sawmills there. If any trees are being cut, they are from private > > land, and there is very little private land in Lincoln County, Montana. Almost > > all of the land is Forest Service land. Lincoln County is about one and a half > > times the size of the state of Delaware and has about 19,000 people. Delaware has > > about a million people. The main two industries in Lincoln County now are mesothelioma > > lawsuits and collecting social security benefits. There used to be an asbestos mine at Libby, Montana. > > Yes, I'm aware of that. The largest employment in Lincoln County is the > EPA, because the whole county pretty much is an EPA Superfund cleanup > site, because the owners of the mine contaminated everything from soccer > practice fields to rainwater retention ponds. > > > So now tell me something. I went to Montana State University for a year. There were a > > lot of people at that University enrolled in the physics curriculum when I was there, plus all > > of the people taking engineering, etc., who had to take a lot of physics classes. What do all of > > those people do after they graduate if there are only 17,000 jobs for them in the United States? > > > > This may come as a surprise to you because you only went for a year. But > most schools require you to take a broad spectrum of classes whether you > intend to work in that area or not. All students planning to go into > medicine, for example, are required to take physics as an undergraduate. > The same is true for geologists, chemists, engineers, biologists, > pharmacists, and a whole host of other groups. > > There may be several hundred students taking physics classes at a > typical university, and only a dozen or so of them are physics majors. > Of the undergraduate physics majors, only a small fraction of those will > continue on with graduate studies to make physics a career. > > As an example, did you take an English course at Montana State? Are you > now an English teacher? > Well, yes, I am. I have been for the last twenty years. It was entirely unintentional on my part, but then I started posting in sci.physics.relativity, and scientists started answering my posts. You can determine for yourself how successful these people were at using the English language. Then I started posting responses that did not contain profanity, insults, or the other devices that scientists use when trying to communicate. So I think you could say that I was teaching English by example for the last twenty years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 14:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8cv06$1dci$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409876 |
On 2/18/2017 4:54 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/18/2017 3:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>> Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today >>>>>> than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. >>>>> Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills >>>>> in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. >>>> >>>> I believe that the lumber industry includes more people than are >>>> actually working in the sawmills. After all, the sawmills are not on >>>> trucks, carried around to where the trees are. If you think really hard, >>>> you may remember that about the work. >>>> >>>> There were 17,410 physicists and astronomers in the US in May 2015. >>>> There were 38,700 logging workers in the US in May 2015. >>>> This included 5840 fallers, 27,290 logging equipment operators, 2740 log >>>> graders and scalers, and 2830 "logging workers, all other". >>>> You can look it up if you like. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. >>>> >>>> Seems to me that the logging industry is in better shape than the >>>> physics industry, at least according to those stats. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Well, the logging industry is in pitiful shape, as anyone who was ever in it knows. >>> What you neglect in your assessment is all of the people in various industries who >>> use physics in their work who are not called physicists. >> >> Then they are not physicists. Likewise, accountants and grocery store >> clerks who use mathematics are not mathematicians. Taxi drivers and park >> rangers who use maps are not geographers. And people like me who use >> wood are not loggers or sawmill employees. >> >>> The County I came from in Montana employed almost everyone in logging or sawmill work. >>> We would also include the people employed by the Forest Service in this number. >>> Today there are no sawmills there. If any trees are being cut, they are from private >>> land, and there is very little private land in Lincoln County, Montana. Almost >>> all of the land is Forest Service land. Lincoln County is about one and a half >>> times the size of the state of Delaware and has about 19,000 people. Delaware has >>> about a million people. The main two industries in Lincoln County now are mesothelioma >>> lawsuits and collecting social security benefits. There used to be an asbestos mine at Libby, Montana. >> >> Yes, I'm aware of that. The largest employment in Lincoln County is the >> EPA, because the whole county pretty much is an EPA Superfund cleanup >> site, because the owners of the mine contaminated everything from soccer >> practice fields to rainwater retention ponds. >> >>> So now tell me something. I went to Montana State University for a year. There were a >>> lot of people at that University enrolled in the physics curriculum when I was there, plus all >>> of the people taking engineering, etc., who had to take a lot of physics classes. What do all of >>> those people do after they graduate if there are only 17,000 jobs for them in the United States? >>> >> >> This may come as a surprise to you because you only went for a year. But >> most schools require you to take a broad spectrum of classes whether you >> intend to work in that area or not. All students planning to go into >> medicine, for example, are required to take physics as an undergraduate. >> The same is true for geologists, chemists, engineers, biologists, >> pharmacists, and a whole host of other groups. >> >> There may be several hundred students taking physics classes at a >> typical university, and only a dozen or so of them are physics majors. >> Of the undergraduate physics majors, only a small fraction of those will >> continue on with graduate studies to make physics a career. >> >> As an example, did you take an English course at Montana State? Are you >> now an English teacher? >> > Well, yes, I am. I have been for the last twenty years. It was entirely unintentional on my part, > but then I started posting in sci.physics.relativity, and scientists started answering my posts. > You can determine for yourself how successful these people were at using the English language. > Then I started posting responses that did not contain profanity, insults, or the other devices > that scientists use when trying to communicate. So I think you could say that I was teaching English > by example for the last twenty years. > Doing something that you think you're good at does not make you a professional in that category. There are lots of hobbyist woodworkers with garage shops, in which they make a table or a storage box. This does not make them a professional woodworker. You also cook meals, but this does not make you a chef by profession. You may also tend a yard, but this does not make you a landscaper by profession. Likewise, someone who clears trees from his property is not a lumber worker. You asked about the number of people who take physics classes compared to those who are physicists by profession. I've answered you. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <94672bd0-af63-47b2-a4d9-4b89bb6f2eab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409865 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 2:30:49 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/18/2017 3:19 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 9:57:12 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>> Did you know, Robert, that there are more lumber industry workers today > >>>> than there are physicists? Quite a bit more in fact. > >>> Well, I doubt that very much. The last time I checked there were only 175 sawmills > >>> in the entire United States. A typical sawmill does not have very many employees. > >> > >> I believe that the lumber industry includes more people than are > >> actually working in the sawmills. After all, the sawmills are not on > >> trucks, carried around to where the trees are. If you think really hard, > >> you may remember that about the work. > >> > >> There were 17,410 physicists and astronomers in the US in May 2015. > >> There were 38,700 logging workers in the US in May 2015. > >> This included 5840 fallers, 27,290 logging equipment operators, 2740 log > >> graders and scalers, and 2830 "logging workers, all other". > >> You can look it up if you like. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. > >> > >> Seems to me that the logging industry is in better shape than the > >> physics industry, at least according to those stats. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Well, the logging industry is in pitiful shape, as anyone who was ever in it knows. > > What you neglect in your assessment is all of the people in various industries who > > use physics in their work who are not called physicists. > > Then they are not physicists. Likewise, accountants and grocery store > clerks who use mathematics are not mathematicians. Taxi drivers and park > rangers who use maps are not geographers. And people like me who use > wood are not loggers or sawmill employees. > > > The County I came from in Montana employed almost everyone in logging or sawmill work. > > We would also include the people employed by the Forest Service in this number. > > Today there are no sawmills there. If any trees are being cut, they are from private > > land, and there is very little private land in Lincoln County, Montana. Almost > > all of the land is Forest Service land. Lincoln County is about one and a half > > times the size of the state of Delaware and has about 19,000 people. Delaware has > > about a million people. The main two industries in Lincoln County now are mesothelioma > > lawsuits and collecting social security benefits. There used to be an asbestos mine at Libby, Montana. > > Yes, I'm aware of that. The largest employment in Lincoln County is the > EPA, because the whole county pretty much is an EPA Superfund cleanup > site, because the owners of the mine contaminated everything from soccer > practice fields to rainwater retention ponds. > My sister has a lot of fun talking to the scientific people involved in EPA Superfund cleanup. She was watching a group of college students in Libby one time who were saving our lives from asbestos contamination. So then after a while she asked them, Where are your masks? Masks? Yes, aren't you supposed to be wearing masks so that you don't get mesothelioma? She know some things like this because she was a heart surgery nurse for thirty years. Then her father-in law died at the age of 101 in Libby. When she got his death certificate it said he died of mesothelioma. So she went and interrogated the doctors involved in making out the death certificate. It turned out that the more people who die of mesothelioma in Lincoln County, the more money they can get from the federal government. But when it was all over, she and my brother-in-law and his brother made them change the death certificate, and then she contacted the horrible mining company who is getting sued for all of this and asked them, would you like some free information about this death? It turned out they did want the information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-19 14:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8d000$1ffl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409881 |
On 2/18/2017 5:12 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > My sister has a lot of fun talking to the scientific people involved in EPA Superfund cleanup. > She was watching a group of college students in Libby one time who were saving our lives from > asbestos contamination. So then after a while she asked them, Where are your masks? > Masks? > Yes, aren't you supposed to be wearing masks so that you don't get mesothelioma? > She know some things like this because she was a heart surgery nurse for thirty years. > Then her father-in law died at the age of 101 in Libby. When she got his death certificate it > said he died of mesothelioma. So she went and interrogated the doctors involved in making out > the death certificate. It turned out that the more people who die of mesothelioma in Lincoln > County, the more money they can get from the federal government. But when it was all over, > she and my brother-in-law and his brother made them change the death certificate, and then she > contacted the horrible mining company who is getting sued for all of this and asked them, would > you like some free information about this death? It turned out they did want the information. I have no doubt that there were some odd behaviors in the fallout of the Superfund cleanup. In general things were handled very badly in your hometown. First, Grace managed to kill ten percent of the population of Libby and surrounding areas by loading the whole town with asbestos, including the sawmill. On top of that, St. Regis had been running the tree-cutting business in a sustainable way, with limited cuts done more frequently, until Champion bought them out and started clear-cutting old-growth forests. Well, that can't be sustained forever and when the environmental groups started telling the Forestry Service that Champion was on the path of pillaging the resources, the Forestry service slowed down the cutting. But now Champion was committed to the higher cut rate and they could not sustain the operation and they sold out to Plum Creek who sold out to Stimson who just shut stuff down because people were moving out of an EPA disaster area as it was. As far as I know, no use of relativity was involved in any of this. I have no idea why you chose to go to Arizona to pick oranges, instead of just moving to a different county in Montana where there is still viable logging today. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 11:10 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o89v5q$hiv$11@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409696 |
On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2017 10:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> I would suspect that a lot more saddles are being made today than were being made in the 1800's. >>> There are a lot more horses being used for riding today. Back then there were isolated ranches >>> where there were horses. Today there are 3.5 acre mini-farms with 5 or six horses each. >> Here's a picture of New York City in 1900, Robert. >> https://simplymarvelous.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/easter-morning-1900-new-york-city_s-fifth-avenue1.jpg >> >> I think that what you suspect is generally wrong. > Well, I don't think so. There were a lot more horses in the west than in New York City, and there are a lot more today. > Well, Robert, according to the USDA there were 20 million horses in the US in 1915, most of them domesticated. At the onset of WWI, when motorized transportation began to take over, the number started to fall. In 1959, the number of horses had fallen to 4.5 million in the US, and since that time it has rebounded to about 9 million horses, due to increased interest in recreational uses. So you were saying that you believe a lot more saddles are being made today than were being made at the end of the 19th century, because there are a lot more horses now than then. So this just goes to show you that your own personal hunches about things, based on the limited view of the world that you've been able to enjoy, is not particularly reliable. For some people, this matters, though it clearly does not matter to you. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86336446-742a-4522-9941-47edfb6da3be@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409814 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:10:22 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/17/2017 10:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> I would suspect that a lot more saddles are being made today than were being made in the 1800's. > >>> There are a lot more horses being used for riding today. Back then there were isolated ranches > >>> where there were horses. Today there are 3.5 acre mini-farms with 5 or six horses each. > >> Here's a picture of New York City in 1900, Robert. > >> https://simplymarvelous.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/easter-morning-1900-new-york-city_s-fifth-avenue1.jpg > >> > >> I think that what you suspect is generally wrong. > > Well, I don't think so. There were a lot more horses in the west than in New York City, and there are a lot more today. > > > > Well, Robert, according to the USDA there were 20 million horses in the > US in 1915, most of them domesticated. At the onset of WWI, when > motorized transportation began to take over, the number started to fall. > In 1959, the number of horses had fallen to 4.5 million in the US, and > since that time it has rebounded to about 9 million horses, due to > increased interest in recreational uses. > > So you were saying that you believe a lot more saddles are being made > today than were being made at the end of the 19th century, because there > are a lot more horses now than then. > > So this just goes to show you that your own personal hunches about > things, based on the limited view of the world that you've been able to > enjoy, is not particularly reliable. For some people, this matters, > though it clearly does not matter to you. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Most of the horses in the West were not domesticated as you infer. There were large herds of wild horses back then. Also, not all horses were riding horses. There were almost as many work horses as riding horses back then. They did not have many tractors until the 1920's. Today they probably make more saddles than they did back then because almost all horses are riding horses today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 15:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o8aeh9$1dkk$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409863 |
On 2/18/2017 3:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:10:22 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/17/2017 10:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> I would suspect that a lot more saddles are being made today than were being made in the 1800's. >>>>> There are a lot more horses being used for riding today. Back then there were isolated ranches >>>>> where there were horses. Today there are 3.5 acre mini-farms with 5 or six horses each. >>>> Here's a picture of New York City in 1900, Robert. >>>> https://simplymarvelous.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/easter-morning-1900-new-york-city_s-fifth-avenue1.jpg >>>> >>>> I think that what you suspect is generally wrong. >>> Well, I don't think so. There were a lot more horses in the west than in New York City, and there are a lot more today. >>> >> >> Well, Robert, according to the USDA there were 20 million horses in the >> US in 1915, most of them domesticated. At the onset of WWI, when >> motorized transportation began to take over, the number started to fall. >> In 1959, the number of horses had fallen to 4.5 million in the US, and >> since that time it has rebounded to about 9 million horses, due to >> increased interest in recreational uses. >> >> So you were saying that you believe a lot more saddles are being made >> today than were being made at the end of the 19th century, because there >> are a lot more horses now than then. >> >> So this just goes to show you that your own personal hunches about >> things, based on the limited view of the world that you've been able to >> enjoy, is not particularly reliable. For some people, this matters, >> though it clearly does not matter to you. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Most of the horses in the West were not domesticated as you infer. I checked that. There were an estimated 35,000 wild horses back then. > There were large herds of > wild horses back then. Also, not all horses were riding horses. There were almost as many > work horses as riding horses back then. They did not have many tractors until the 1920's. > Today they probably make more saddles than they did back then because almost all horses are > riding horses today. > I'll repeat the statement that you tend to make things up based on what seems to make sense to you, whether or not that is in alignment with facts. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-18 15:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1bc0890-e56c-41d1-8873-f381b35d7d9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409866 |
On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 2:32:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/18/2017 3:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 10:10:22 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/17/2017 1:03 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:28:27 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/17/2017 10:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> I would suspect that a lot more saddles are being made today than were being made in the 1800's. > >>>>> There are a lot more horses being used for riding today. Back then there were isolated ranches > >>>>> where there were horses. Today there are 3.5 acre mini-farms with 5 or six horses each. > >>>> Here's a picture of New York City in 1900, Robert. > >>>> https://simplymarvelous.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/easter-morning-1900-new-york-city_s-fifth-avenue1.jpg > >>>> > >>>> I think that what you suspect is generally wrong. > >>> Well, I don't think so. There were a lot more horses in the west than in New York City, and there are a lot more today. > >>> > >> > >> Well, Robert, according to the USDA there were 20 million horses in the > >> US in 1915, most of them domesticated. At the onset of WWI, when > >> motorized transportation began to take over, the number started to fall. > >> In 1959, the number of horses had fallen to 4.5 million in the US, and > >> since that time it has rebounded to about 9 million horses, due to > >> increased interest in recreational uses. > >> > >> So you were saying that you believe a lot more saddles are being made > >> today than were being made at the end of the 19th century, because there > >> are a lot more horses now than then. > >> > >> So this just goes to show you that your own personal hunches about > >> things, based on the limited view of the world that you've been able to > >> enjoy, is not particularly reliable. For some people, this matters, > >> though it clearly does not matter to you. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Most of the horses in the West were not domesticated as you infer. > > I checked that. There were an estimated 35,000 wild horses back then. > > > There were large herds of > > wild horses back then. Also, not all horses were riding horses. There were almost as many > > work horses as riding horses back then. They did not have many tractors until the 1920's. > > Today they probably make more saddles than they did back then because almost all horses are > > riding horses today. > > > > I'll repeat the statement that you tend to make things up based on what > seems to make sense to you, whether or not that is in alignment with facts. > I tend to make things up? You were the one claiming that all people who made saddles were now out of business.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-12 23:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9147deed-825c-4f62-b847-d9697ef94755@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #408990 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 13 lutego 2017 02:30:05 UTC+1 użytkownik danco...@gmail.com napisał: > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 4:28:50 PM UTC-8, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Sunday, February 12, 2017 at 11:42:06 AM UTC-7, danco...@gmail.com wrote: > > > You predict a factor of (1 - v/c) and relativity > > > predicts a factor of sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2), and all the > > > experimental results confirm the relativistic factor. > > > What part of this don't you understand? > > > > Well, the part I don't understand is how you think there > > is some great difference between your factor and the factor > > I get ... at any velocities that can be observed directly. > > Cesium clocks have been flown in airplanes and the relativistic time dilation factor has been confirmed repeatedly. When cared properly, clocks repeatedly indicate no time dilation. You can check it here. http://www.leapsecond.com/java/gpsclock.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 07:25 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sc48$5l1$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #408983 |
On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster than Mercury that's been observed? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 06:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9c7aa20d-4784-4c3c-8288-76d28a28d0f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409022 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > > The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. > > Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster > than Mercury that's been observed? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 09:20 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7sira$jkk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409033 |
On 2/13/2017 8:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. >> >> Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster >> than Mercury that's been observed? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second. > Well, let's see. The New Horizons probe. Electrons in an electron microscope, or for that matter in a cathode ray tube TV. Cosmic rays. Protons in a particle accelerator. Ionized atoms in the RHIC collider. Lots of things, Robert. Where have you been? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-13 08:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <eed4646d-af9b-4264-9377-925285cc5f27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409041 |
On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/13/2017 8:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. > >> > >> Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster > >> than Mercury that's been observed? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second. > > > > Well, let's see. > The New Horizons probe. > Electrons in an electron microscope, or for that matter in a cathode ray > tube TV. > Cosmic rays. > Protons in a particle accelerator. > Ionized atoms in the RHIC collider. > > Lots of things, Robert. Where have you been? > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables The New Horizons probe is only going 23 km/sec. The rest of these things are theoretical and cannot be observed directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7uu1u$iut$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409057 |
On 2/13/2017 10:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/13/2017 8:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. >>>> >>>> Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster >>>> than Mercury that's been observed? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second. >>> >> >> Well, let's see. >> The New Horizons probe. >> Electrons in an electron microscope, or for that matter in a cathode ray >> tube TV. >> Cosmic rays. >> Protons in a particle accelerator. >> Ionized atoms in the RHIC collider. >> >> Lots of things, Robert. Where have you been? >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > The New Horizons probe is only going 23 km/sec. Not so, Robert. It's launch speed was 16 km/sec, but since then the earth has changed its motion so that now you have to add to that the 30 km/sec the earth is moving away from it. Get your facts straight. > The rest of these things are theoretical and cannot be observed directly. You believe that atoms, electrons, protons are theoretical and cannot be observed, cannot have their speed measured? If electrons are theoretical, then how you imagine a CRT television actually works, Robert? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Winn <rbwinn3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 06:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2bc37693-b75f-48d6-a7e0-2e1afb77ee0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #409181 |
On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:43:45 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 2/13/2017 10:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > > On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 2/13/2017 8:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: > >>>>> The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. > >>>> > >>>> Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster > >>>> than Mercury that's been observed? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >>> Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second. > >>> > >> > >> Well, let's see. > >> The New Horizons probe. > >> Electrons in an electron microscope, or for that matter in a cathode ray > >> tube TV. > >> Cosmic rays. > >> Protons in a particle accelerator. > >> Ionized atoms in the RHIC collider. > >> > >> Lots of things, Robert. Where have you been? > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > The New Horizons probe is only going 23 km/sec. > > Not so, Robert. It's launch speed was 16 km/sec, but since then the > earth has changed its motion so that now you have to add to that the 30 > km/sec the earth is moving away from it. Get your facts straight. > > > The rest of these things are theoretical and cannot be observed directly. > > You believe that atoms, electrons, protons are theoretical and cannot be > observed, cannot have their speed measured? > > If electrons are theoretical, then how you imagine a CRT television > actually works, Robert? > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables I have my facts straight. The scientists who launched it say that it is traveling twenty some kilometers per second. You seem to be trying to use the Galilean transformation equations again. Don't they seem a little too difficult for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-14 11:26 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <o7veke$1o4s$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #409193 |
On 2/14/2017 8:48 AM, Robert Winn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 5:43:45 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 2/13/2017 10:05 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 8:20:13 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 2/13/2017 8:47 AM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>> On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 6:25:31 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 2/12/2017 6:28 PM, Robert Winn wrote: >>>>>>> The fastest thing I know about that can be observed directly is the planet Mercury, which is going about 30 miles per second. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh dear, Robert. Really? You don't know of anything that goes faster >>>>>> than Mercury that's been observed? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>>> Well, OK, name something that has been observed going faster than 30 miles per second. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, let's see. >>>> The New Horizons probe. >>>> Electrons in an electron microscope, or for that matter in a cathode ray >>>> tube TV. >>>> Cosmic rays. >>>> Protons in a particle accelerator. >>>> Ionized atoms in the RHIC collider. >>>> >>>> Lots of things, Robert. Where have you been? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >>> The New Horizons probe is only going 23 km/sec. >> >> Not so, Robert. It's launch speed was 16 km/sec, but since then the >> earth has changed its motion so that now you have to add to that the 30 >> km/sec the earth is moving away from it. Get your facts straight. >> >>> The rest of these things are theoretical and cannot be observed directly. >> >> You believe that atoms, electrons, protons are theoretical and cannot be >> observed, cannot have their speed measured? >> >> If electrons are theoretical, then how you imagine a CRT television >> actually works, Robert? No answer, Robert? >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > I have my facts straight. The scientists who launched it say that it is traveling > twenty some kilometers per second. Reference, Robert? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web