Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #417750 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-01 01:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-01 11:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 92 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 01:51 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:04 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 07:30 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:18 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 10:50 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:58 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 11:37 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 13:53 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:08 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-02 05:25 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 11:14 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-03 23:10 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:52 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:18 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-02 14:57 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 15:37 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Ukabaru Hongetsu <uohio@ugutua.ic> - 2017-05-02 22:52 +0000
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 16:38 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-03 15:51 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:55 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:32 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:38 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-04 19:13 +0100
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:15 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 20:48 +0100
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-06 06:01 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 13:35 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:12 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Lokù Bukovych Davka <ocyoa@vackokaov.bu> - 2017-05-05 12:43 +0000
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 11:23 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-06 05:46 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:27 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-05 20:49 +0100
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-06 06:07 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 17:40 +0100
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-03 15:44 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:58 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-04 19:41 +0100
Re: Renormalization in QED RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 15:27 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-05 15:51 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-06 08:01 +0100
Re: Renormalization in QED Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 +0200
Re: Renormalization in QED RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-06 21:02 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 07:56 +0200
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 09:00 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 09:40 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-08 15:20 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-09 12:15 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 21:32 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 16:53 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-08 12:08 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-08 20:58 +0000
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 13:10 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-03 16:01 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:59 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:38 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-05-05 15:01 +0200
Re: Renormalization in QED mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-05 06:13 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:42 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 06:26 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 09:14 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:31 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:43 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-05 13:49 +0000
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:41 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-06 06:16 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:26 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-06 13:01 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 15:56 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-07 07:05 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 14:18 +0000
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 13:22 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-03 15:29 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 09:51 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-05 05:18 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 08:37 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) - 2017-05-01 15:37 -0400
Re: Renormalization in QED Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-01 17:05 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:15 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED Ukabaru Hongetsu <uohio@ugutua.ic> - 2017-05-02 19:23 +0000
Re: Renormalization in QED Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-01 08:44 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 07:27 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:16 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 10:44 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:56 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 11:45 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 13:56 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 12:02 -0700
Re: Renormalization in QED Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:22 -0500
Re: Renormalization in QED JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 11:58 -0700
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 06:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f82d1482-2eba-4029-8c3b-b257b66e21a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418198 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > Ken Seto, senile, wrote: > > I understand renormalization is a math procedure ... > > Do you really think, Mr Seto, that using "I", "understand" and > "math" is the same sentence is appropriate when it comes to you? > > Do you remind your posts below? > > > sqrt (-20) = -4.472 > From: > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html Idiot I was asking a question. > > > (A-B)^2 = A^2 - B^2 > From: > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html Idiot I didn’t say that. Vdm made this up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 09:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oei1ci$hbc$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418207 |
On 5/5/17 8:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> Ken Seto, senile, wrote: >>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure ... >> >> Do you really think, Mr Seto, that using "I", "understand" and >> "math" is the same sentence is appropriate when it comes to you? >> >> Do you remind your posts below? >> >>> sqrt (-20) = -4.472 >> From: >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html > > Idiot I was asking a question. A fourth-grade question, Ken. You would not need to ask the question if you remembered fourth grade math. > >> >>> (A-B)^2 = A^2 - B^2 >> From: >> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html > > Idiot I didn’t say that. Vdm made this up. The link to the original post is there. You said it, Ken. Shall we mention that you still do not know what (-6)/(-2) is? Why do you pretend to be doing advanced physics when you cannot do fourth grade mathematics? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 12:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aaa9dce4-7f19-4247-bd1b-f03f2a5148d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418207 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: > > Ken Seto, senile, wrote: > > > I understand renormalization is a math procedure ... > > > > Do you really think, Mr Seto, that using "I", "understand" and > > "math" is the same sentence is appropriate when it comes to you? > > > > Do you remind your posts below? > > > > > sqrt (-20) = -4.472 > > From: > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html > > Idiot I was asking a question. > > > > > > (A-B)^2 = A^2 - B^2 > > From: > > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html > > Idiot I didn’t say that. Vdm made this up. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/2VoBxh3Q2dc/pGebwd3rA1sJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeikf1$1l28$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418270 |
On 5/5/17 2:31 PM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 8:26:49 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:01:27 AM UTC-4, Python wrote: >>> Ken Seto, senile, wrote: >>>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure ... >>> >>> Do you really think, Mr Seto, that using "I", "understand" and >>> "math" is the same sentence is appropriate when it comes to you? >>> >>> Do you remind your posts below? >>> >>>> sqrt (-20) = -4.472 >>> From: >>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html >> >> Idiot I was asking a question. >> >>> >>>> (A-B)^2 = A^2 - B^2 >>> From: >>> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html >> >> Idiot I didn’t say that. Vdm made this up. > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/2VoBxh3Q2dc/pGebwd3rA1sJ > Yes, of course, but that was 15 years ago. Ken probably doesn't remember where he was LIVING in 2001, let alone what he said. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oehvie$d3j$11@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418198 |
On 5/5/17 8:01 AM, Python wrote: > Ken Seto, senile, wrote: >> I understand renormalization is a math procedure ... > > Do you really think, Mr Seto, that using "I", "understand" and > "math" is the same sentence is appropriate when it comes to you? > > Do you remind your posts below? > >> sqrt (-20) = -4.472 > From: > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html > >> (A-B)^2 = A^2 - B^2 > From: > http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html > > Ken, your documented historical INCOMPETENCE at basic algebra makes everything you say about what you "understand" about physics an obvious pretense. Why do you insist on pretending when everyone KNOWS you're pretending? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oehvtr$83d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #418198 |
Python <python@example.invalid> writes: >Ken Seto, senile, wrote: >> I understand renormalization is a math procedure ... >Do you really think, Mr Seto, that using "I", "understand" and >"math" is the same sentence is appropriate when it comes to you? >Do you remind your posts below? >> sqrt (-20) = -4.472 >From: >http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html >> (A-B)^2 = A^2 - B^2 >From: >http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html Don't forget Ken's inability to calculate the value of (-6)/(-2)!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oehvdv$d3j$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418191 |
On 5/5/17 7:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:59:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/3/17 6:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:10:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/2/17 4:57 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/2/17 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/1/17 1:37 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> We are not talking about Dirac’s delta function. We are talking about the infinities that exist in the original >>> QED equations. Dirac said that getting rid of these infinities is >>>>>> not sensible mathematics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dirac made a MISTAKE when he said the infinities are neglected in an >>>>>>>> arbitrary way. They are not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes they are Dirac didn’t make a MISTAKE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Ken, but nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not >>>>>> understood. Nor does anyone care what YOU think the problem is. You >>>>>> don't know what renormalization even is, and so you're not really in a >>>>>> position to declare it problematic. People without any understanding of >>>>>> a subject should not be declaring there are problems in the subject. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. >>>> >>>> Yes, I do. >>> >>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. >> >> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. > > Then you don’t understand what you read. Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted you DON'T know what it is. > I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities > that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know what renormalization mean. Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? > >> >> You do this every single time. When someone has read something in a >> book, you beg them to tell you about it in a newsgroup, because you do >> not want to have to go to the same book. Because you HATE reading books. >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3e4622af-47f2-45b5-b66a-11c2f6f21ede@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418215 |
On Friday, May 5, 2017 at 9:41:22 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/5/17 7:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:59:42 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/3/17 6:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:10:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/2/17 4:57 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/2/17 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/1/17 1:37 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> We are not talking about Dirac’s delta function. We are talking about the infinities that exist in the original >>> QED equations. Dirac said that getting rid of these infinities is > >>>>>> not sensible mathematics. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dirac made a MISTAKE when he said the infinities are neglected in an > >>>>>>>> arbitrary way. They are not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes they are Dirac didn’t make a MISTAKE. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, Ken, but nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not > >>>>>> understood. Nor does anyone care what YOU think the problem is. You > >>>>>> don't know what renormalization even is, and so you're not really in a > >>>>>> position to declare it problematic. People without any understanding of > >>>>>> a subject should not be declaring there are problems in the subject. > >>>>> > >>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I do. > >>> > >>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. > >> > >> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. > > > > Then you don’t understand what you read. > > Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization > and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted > you DON'T know what it is. > > > I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities > that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the > universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know > what renormalization mean. > > Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know > nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your > invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? There is nothing wrong with what I said. “renormalizaation is a meht procedure to get rid of the infinities that exist in the equation”. As Dirac said: Ignoring a large quantity arbitrary is bad math.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 14:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oel80o$1hna$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418381 |
On 5/6/17 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I do. >>>>> >>>>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. >>>> >>>> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. >>> >>> Then you don’t understand what you read. >> >> Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization >> and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted >> you DON'T know what it is. >> >>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities >> that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the >> universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know >> what renormalization mean. >> >> Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know >> nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your >> invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? > > There is nothing wrong with what I said. “renormalizaation is a meht procedure > to get rid of the infinities that exist in the equation”. You said physicists have no idea why it works. That is a false statement. > As Dirac said: Ignoring a large quantity arbitrary is bad math. But that's not what's done, and as I pointed out to you, Kenneth Wilson won a Nobel Prize showing that this is perfectly sound math, something that Dirac was mistaken about. Dirac made that statement before Kenneth Wilson published the work that showed Dirac he was wrong. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 13:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9c72dd56-3adf-4d94-8320-8e84ad302254@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418447 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:26:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/6/17 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yes, I do. > >>>>> > >>>>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. > >>>> > >>>> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. > >>> > >>> Then you don’t understand what you read. > >> > >> Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization > >> and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted > >> you DON'T know what it is. > >> > >>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities > >> that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the > >> universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know > >> what renormalization mean. > >> > >> Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know > >> nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your > >> invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? > > > > There is nothing wrong with what I said. “renormalizaation is a meht procedure > to get rid of the infinities that exist in the equation”. > > You said physicists have no idea why it works. That is a false statement. It’s not a false statement.....physicists should realize that any equation that contains infinities was derived from a false model of the universe. The fact that you can renormalize the infinities away and get the correct equation is irrelevant. > > > As Dirac said: Ignoring a large quantity arbitrary is bad math. > > But that's not what's done, and as I pointed out to you, Kenneth Wilson > won a Nobel Prize showing that this is perfectly sound math, something > that Dirac was mistaken about. Dirac made that statement before Kenneth > Wilson published the work that showed Dirac he was wrong. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 15:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeldae$1r3b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418462 |
On 5/6/17 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:26:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/6/17 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> Then you don’t understand what you read. >>>> >>>> Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization >>>> and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted >>>> you DON'T know what it is. >>>> >>>>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities >>>> that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the >>>> universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know >>>> what renormalization mean. >>>> >>>> Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know >>>> nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your >>>> invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? >>> >>> There is nothing wrong with what I said. “renormalizaation is a meht procedure > to get rid of the infinities that exist in the equation”. >> >> You said physicists have no idea why it works. That is a false statement. > > It’s not a false statement..... Yes, it IS a false statement. They DO know why it works. This is the truth independent of whether you think they should look at your ideas or not. You LIED. > physicists should realize that any equation that contains infinities was > derived from a false model of the universe. The fact that you can renormalize the infinities away and get > the correct equation is irrelevant. In science it is VERY relevant of you can renormalize the infinities away and get the correct equation. Getting the correct equation is the whole objective of science. > >> >>> As Dirac said: Ignoring a large quantity arbitrary is bad math. >> >> But that's not what's done, and as I pointed out to you, Kenneth Wilson >> won a Nobel Prize showing that this is perfectly sound math, something >> that Dirac was mistaken about. Dirac made that statement before Kenneth >> Wilson published the work that showed Dirac he was wrong. Dirac was wrong. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 07:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fda2dcd-f208-401b-abe6-0e31ce513047@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418470 |
On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 4:56:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/6/17 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:26:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/6/17 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Yes, I do. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then you don’t understand what you read. > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization > >>>> and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted > >>>> you DON'T know what it is. > >>>> > >>>>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities > >>>> that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the > >>>> universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know > >>>> what renormalization mean. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know > >>>> nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your > >>>> invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? > >>> > >>> There is nothing wrong with what I said. “renormalizaation is a meht procedure > to get rid of the infinities that exist in the equation”. > >> > >> You said physicists have no idea why it works. That is a false statement. > > > > It’s not a false statement..... > > Yes, it IS a false statement. They DO know why it works. This is the > truth independent of whether you think they should look at your ideas or > not. You LIED. They invented the mathematical reasons why renormalization works. But the true reason why renormalization works is because the equation should not include infinities to begin with. IOW if you use the correct model of the universe to derive the equation then there is no need for renormalization....Why? Because the resulting equation will contain no infinity. > > > physicists should realize that any equation that contains infinities was > > derived from a false model of the universe. The fact that you can renormalize the infinities away and get > > the correct equation is irrelevant. > > In science it is VERY relevant of you can renormalize the infinities > away and get the correct equation. Getting the correct equation is the > whole objective of science. As I said the need for renormalization is due to the use of incorrect model of the universe. There is no need for renormalization if the correct model of the universe is used to derived the equation....Why? Because such equation will contain no infinity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oenab5$it8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418516 |
kenseto wrote: >> Yes, it IS a false statement. They DO know why it works. This is the >> truth independent of whether you think they should look at your ideas >> or not. You LIED. > > They invented the mathematical reasons why renormalization works. But > the true reason why renormalization works is because the equation should > not include infinities to begin with. IOW if you use the correct model > of the universe to derive the equation then there is no need for > renormalization....Why? Because the resulting equation will contain no > infinity. This is absolutely correct. The army of nepots populating Modern Science industry are not bothering coming up with such one. You are paying monthly for their bourgoiseose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-07 13:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oenokv$1h8c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418516 |
On 5/7/17 9:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 4:56:50 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/6/17 3:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 3:26:19 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/6/17 8:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....you don’t know what renormalization is either. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No you don’t.....you just bull-shiting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, yes, I do. I've read the books. You have not. It’s as simple as that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you don’t understand what you read. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I do. You on the other hand have read NOTHING about renormalization >>>>>> and you claim to know what it is? No, in fact, you've already admitted >>>>>> you DON'T know what it is. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand renormalization is a math procedure to get rid of the infinities >>>>>> that exist in an equation that were derived from a bogus model of the >>>>>> universe. > You don’t have this understanding and thus you don’t know >>>>>> what renormalization mean. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, you're messed up. You INVENT a statement about a subject you know >>>>>> nothing about, and then you claim that anyone who doesn't share your >>>>>> invented belief doesn't understand the subject? REALLY??? >>>>> >>>>> There is nothing wrong with what I said. “renormalizaation is a meht procedure >>>>> to get rid of the infinities that exist in the equation”. >>>> >>>> You said physicists have no idea why it works. That is a false statement. >>> >>> It’s not a false statement..... >> >> Yes, it IS a false statement. They DO know why it works. This is the >> truth independent of whether you think they should look at your ideas or >> not. You LIED. > > They invented the mathematical reasons why renormalization works. No, they did not. > But the true reason why renormalization works is because the equation should > not include infinities to begin with. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having infinite terms canceling in a theory. NOTHING. > IOW if you use the correct model of the > universe to derive the equation then there is no need for renormalization.... > Why? Because the resulting equation will contain no infinity. You can't derive any formula from your ideas comparable to what QED can calculate correctly. So it doesn't matter what you think is a better idea. > >> >>> physicists should realize that any equation that contains infinities was >>> derived from a false model of the universe. The fact that you can renormalize the infinities away and get >>> the correct equation is irrelevant. >> >> In science it is VERY relevant of you can renormalize the infinities >> away and get the correct equation. Getting the correct equation is the >> whole objective of science. > > As I said the need for renormalization is due to the use of incorrect model of > the universe. There is no need for renormalization if the correct model of the > universe is used to derived the equation....Why? Because such equation will contain > no infinity. > So go ahead and derive the math from your theory that calculates what QED calculates and show that you can do it with no infinities. Go ahead. You who can't do fourth grade math --- go ahead. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b15e0e81-aec9-4f63-bf2e-54e2584cdca6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417883 |
On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/2/17 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/1/17 1:37 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> We are not talking about Dirac’s delta function. We are talking about the infinities that exist in the original >>> QED equations. Dirac said that getting rid of these infinities is > not sensible mathematics. > >>> > >> > >> Dirac made a MISTAKE when he said the infinities are neglected in an > >> arbitrary way. They are not. > > > > Yes they are Dirac didn’t make a MISTAKE. > > Sorry, Ken, but nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not > understood. Nor does anyone care what YOU think the problem is. You > don't know what renormalization even is, and so you're not really in a > position to declare it problematic. People without any understanding of > a subject should not be declaring there are problems in the subject. So you don’t care is nobody care? I don’t think so. > > > The infinities were derived from the bogus assumptions that the electric charges were reside inside the particle > > as the particle size is reduced in size, the > > electric charge become infinite. Using different math manipulations > > to get rid if these infinities merely means that the assumptions that enable these math > > manipulations were wrong or invalid. > > > > The proper way to get rid of the infinities is to get rid of the source of infinities and that is: > The electric charges are not reside within the particles. They are > the distortions in the E-Matrix caused by the a> bsolute motions of the > interacting particles in the E-Matrix. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > >> What happens is that different terms in the > >> expansion, which are infinite individually, are shown to have the same > >> size and opposite sign, and so they CANCEL. Another way of describing it > >> is that the mass and charge of a system are known two ways: a) by > >> measuring them, and b) by adding up a sum of terms in QED that describe > >> self-interactions. Rather than putting in the known masses in the terms > >> that get summed up, you put "bare" charges and masses in the terms that > >> get summed up, so that the SUM adds up to the measured values. > >> > >> Kenneth Wilson, a Nobel Prize winner, made this approach completely > >> mathematically sensible by showing how the Kondo problem is solved. He > >> did this in 1975, AFTER Dirac made his comments. Wilson showed Dirac > >> that renormalization is not bad mathematics at all. Wilson won a Nobel > >> Prize for this work. > >> > >> You can learn about this by looking up books that have chapters on > >> renormalization. > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-04 09:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeff5d$788$9@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417981 |
On 5/3/17 5:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/2/17 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/1/17 1:37 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> We are not talking about Dirac’s delta function. We are talking about the infinities that exist in the original >>> QED equations. Dirac said that getting rid of these infinities is >> not sensible mathematics. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Dirac made a MISTAKE when he said the infinities are neglected in an >>>> arbitrary way. They are not. >>> >>> Yes they are Dirac didn’t make a MISTAKE. >> >> Sorry, Ken, but nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not >> understood. Nor does anyone care what YOU think the problem is. You >> don't know what renormalization even is, and so you're not really in a >> position to declare it problematic. People without any understanding of >> a subject should not be declaring there are problems in the subject. > > So you don’t care is nobody care? I don’t think so. I assure you, Ken: NOBODY cares whether YOU think renormalization is not understood. If there were people that cared, they would have bought your book. But nobody did. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 05:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13006517-723f-47f9-be67-1f8b2ce9cb27@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #418049 |
On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:51:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/3/17 5:29 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/2/17 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/1/17 1:37 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> We are not talking about Dirac’s delta function. We are talking about the infinities that exist in the original > >>> QED equations. Dirac said that getting rid of these infinities is > >> not sensible mathematics. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dirac made a MISTAKE when he said the infinities are neglected in an > >>>> arbitrary way. They are not. > >>> > >>> Yes they are Dirac didn’t make a MISTAKE. > >> > >> Sorry, Ken, but nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not > >> understood. Nor does anyone care what YOU think the problem is. You > >> don't know what renormalization even is, and so you're not really in a > >> position to declare it problematic. People without any understanding of > >> a subject should not be declaring there are problems in the subject. > > > > So you don’t care is nobody care? I don’t think so. > > I assure you, Ken: NOBODY cares whether YOU think renormalization is not > understood. If there were people that cared, they would have bought your > book. But nobody did. I didn’t say that renormalize is not understood......I said that you don’t understand the purpose of renormalization.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-05 08:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oehv6i$d3j$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #418187 |
On 5/5/17 7:18 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, May 4, 2017 at 10:51:28 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/3/17 5:29 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 3:19:00 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/2/17 7:25 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 3:08:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/1/17 1:37 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> We are not talking about Dirac’s delta function. We are talking about the infinities that exist in the original >>>>> QED equations. Dirac said that getting rid of these infinities is >>>> not sensible mathematics. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dirac made a MISTAKE when he said the infinities are neglected in an >>>>>> arbitrary way. They are not. >>>>> >>>>> Yes they are Dirac didn’t make a MISTAKE. >>>> >>>> Sorry, Ken, but nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not >>>> understood. Nor does anyone care what YOU think the problem is. You >>>> don't know what renormalization even is, and so you're not really in a >>>> position to declare it problematic. People without any understanding of >>>> a subject should not be declaring there are problems in the subject. >>> >>> So you don’t care is nobody care? I don’t think so. >> >> I assure you, Ken: NOBODY cares whether YOU think renormalization is not >> understood. If there were people that cared, they would have bought your >> book. But nobody did. > > I didn’t say that renormalize is not understood. You said physicists have no idea why renormalization works. That is a false statement. Physicists understand renormalization and why it works. Nobody cares whether YOU think renormalization is not understood. > .....I said that you don’t understand the purpose of renormalization. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dsr@mail.lns.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 15:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sh7f2074im.fsf@lnx231.classe.cornell.edu> |
| In reply to | #417785 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > Paul Dirac made the following comments during a lecture given in New > Zealand in 1975: > “I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because > this so-called ‘good theory’ does involve neglecting infinities which > appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is > just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves > neglecting a quantity when it turns out to be small.” > > So are you saying that Paul Dirac don’t know what he is talking about? Ken Wilson's work on the renormalization group in the 70s made the procedure much more rigorous and gave it a firm theoretical grounding, effectively answering Dirac's concerns (at least so far as most physicists are concerned). wrt which: > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 1:18:42 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Bjorken and Drell's book. Read it. That's where you'll find the >> explanation for why renormalization works. B&D is a classic well worth studying, but a lot has changed since it was written. For understanding renormalization, I'd recommend a more recent book (Peskin & Schroeder is a popular choice). -dan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <BIydnRXCE-OALJrEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #417810 |
On 5/1/17 5/1/17 - 2:37 PM, Daniel S. Riley wrote: > Bjorken and Drell is a classic well worth studying, but a lot has changed since it > was written. For understanding renormalization, I'd recommend a more > recent book (Peskin & Schroeder is a popular choice). I second that advice. All three are on my bookshelf. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web