Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #421678 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-05 22:49 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 53 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Reality versus Math Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-05 22:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 07:56 +0200
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 23:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 02:21 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 02:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math einstein.groupie69@gmail.com - 2017-06-06 09:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Wozniak <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 11:32 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 11:42 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 15:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ernardin Regoire <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-07 20:01 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 14:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 13:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 13:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 15:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-07 14:09 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 06:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 12:16 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 12:52 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-08 23:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-09 07:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 15:18 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-09 15:58 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 14:02 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 19:10 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 19:12 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-10 16:26 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-10 09:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:29 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-08 23:23 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 11:56 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-08 13:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-08 21:00 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 16:35 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-08 15:00 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-09 00:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-09 07:25 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-09 12:51 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 14:35 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Groupie <einstein.groupie69@gmail.com> - 2017-06-06 17:15 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-06 21:41 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-06 22:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:53 -0700
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oh9ors$15rb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421851 |
On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>>>> :)) >>>>>> >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>>>> spitting. >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>>>> >>>>> "Unplonk" >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. >>>> >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >>> >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. >>> >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >>>> >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. >>> >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. >>> >>>> What else can you do >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >>>> stupid. >>> >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your >>> knowledge. >> >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face >> it. > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > exponential). > > -- > Jan > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily understandable to all. To this end, they insist that if most people are okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that every high school graduate might know. To them, that which is beyond that practical level, like subatomic particles and expansion of the universe and quantum fields, is unnecessary, and because it is unnecessary, it is wrong. Their motto is "I DENY your expertise. I DENY the value of what you call knowledge. I DENY social admiration for scientists who do not stick with the practical. I put my contempt for scientists in their faces." Here's the thing, though. This is a group devoted to fans of science. To spend a lot of time speaking to a group of people he has no regard for is a complete waste. It would be like me going every day to meetings of astrologers and holistic healers, and I wouldn't dream of wasting my time telling those people everyday what little I think of them. Who in their right mind would do that? Who in their right mind would barge into a group of people, saying "I find your kind repulsive. Pfpbffplbt!" Here's the answer: nobody in their right mind would do that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-07 14:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5d4d4f5-6808-4773-b2bb-99fabf1648e4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421872 |
W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 22:49:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > >>>>>>> :)) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > >>>>>> spitting. > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > >>>>> > >>>>> "Unplonk" > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > >>>> > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > >>> > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > >>> > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > >>> > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > >>> > >>>> What else can you do > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > >>>> stupid. > >>> > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > >>> knowledge. > >> > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > >> it. > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > exponential). > > > > -- > > Jan > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. You're living in the world of your dreams, confabulating, confabulating, confabulating and confabulating. As expected from a brainwashed fanatic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 06:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83661740-88cf-41b0-a039-2d06faddb043@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421872 |
On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > >>>>>>> :)) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > >>>>>> spitting. > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > >>>>> > >>>>> "Unplonk" > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > >>>> > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > >>> > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > >>> > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > >>>> > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > >>> > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > >>> > >>>> What else can you do > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > >>>> stupid. > >>> > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > >>> knowledge. > >> > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > >> it. > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > exponential). > > > > -- > > Jan > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > every high school graduate might know. No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. Modern aether theories such as Model Mechanics eliminated these non-existing mathematical objects and provided physical explanations for all the processes of nature. > > To them, that which is beyond that practical level, like subatomic > particles and expansion of the universe and quantum fields, is > unnecessary, and because it is unnecessary, it is wrong. > > Their motto is "I DENY your expertise. I DENY the value of what you call > knowledge. I DENY social admiration for scientists who do not stick with > the practical. I put my contempt for scientists in their faces." > > Here's the thing, though. This is a group devoted to fans of science. To > spend a lot of time speaking to a group of people he has no regard for > is a complete waste. It would be like me going every day to meetings of > astrologers and holistic healers, and I wouldn't dream of wasting my > time telling those people everyday what little I think of them. Who in > their right mind would do that? Who in their right mind would barge into > a group of people, saying "I find your kind repulsive. Pfpbffplbt!" > > Here's the answer: nobody in their right mind would do that. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 12:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohc0oi$npd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421945 |
On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>>>>>> :)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>>>>>> spitting. >>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Unplonk" >>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >>>>> >>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. >>>>> >>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. >>>>> >>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. >>>>> >>>>>> What else can you do >>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >>>>>> stupid. >>>>> >>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your >>>>> knowledge. >>>> >>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face >>>> it. >>> >>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is >>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex >>> exponential). >>> >>> -- >>> Jan >>> >> >> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph >> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the >> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily >> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are >> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century >> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to >> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that >> every high school graduate might know. > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. You say that the following things are non-existing, to which I would simply ask -- how do you KNOW these do not exist? A simpleton's answer would be to say, if these things existed then everyone would know about them and see them in everyday life. But of course, this is an idiotic complaint, because ... well, neutrinos, chemical isomers, genes, prions, Not everything that really exists is obvious. > For example: > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. You don't know that. > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. And you don't know they don't exist. > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some definition invented by a human says it can't. > > Modern aether theories such as Model Mechanics eliminated these non-existing mathematical objects and provided physical explanations for all the processes of nature. > >> >> To them, that which is beyond that practical level, like subatomic >> particles and expansion of the universe and quantum fields, is >> unnecessary, and because it is unnecessary, it is wrong. >> >> Their motto is "I DENY your expertise. I DENY the value of what you call >> knowledge. I DENY social admiration for scientists who do not stick with >> the practical. I put my contempt for scientists in their faces." >> >> Here's the thing, though. This is a group devoted to fans of science. To >> spend a lot of time speaking to a group of people he has no regard for >> is a complete waste. It would be like me going every day to meetings of >> astrologers and holistic healers, and I wouldn't dream of wasting my >> time telling those people everyday what little I think of them. Who in >> their right mind would do that? Who in their right mind would barge into >> a group of people, saying "I find your kind repulsive. Pfpbffplbt!" >> >> Here's the answer: nobody in their right mind would do that. >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-06-08 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4210bbca-f4e9-4247-abe8-5b6700b15fc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421970 |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > >>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > >>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > >>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > >>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > >>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > >>>>>>>>> :)) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > >>>>>>>> spitting. > >>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Unplonk" > >>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > >>>>> > >>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > >>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > >>>>> > >>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > >>>>> > >>>>>> What else can you do > >>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > >>>>>> stupid. > >>>>> > >>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > >>>>> knowledge. > >>>> > >>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > >>>> it. > >>> > >>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > >>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > >>> exponential). > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jan > >>> > >> > >> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > >> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > >> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > >> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > >> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > >> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > >> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > >> every high school graduate might know. > > > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. > > You say that the following things are non-existing, to which I would > simply ask -- how do you KNOW these do not exist? > A simpleton's answer would be to say, if these things existed then > everyone would know about them and see them in everyday life. But of > course, this is an idiotic complaint, because ... well, neutrinos, > chemical isomers, genes, prions, > > Not everything that really exists is obvious. > > > For example: > > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > You don’t know that. 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of space are not detected and are not detectable. > > > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. > > And you don’t know they don't exist. 2. Virtual particles pop in and out of empty space to transmit forces seems magical. Model Mechanics offers a better model for force transmission: Mainly that interacting particles are confined to the distorted geometries of the E-Matrix. > > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. > > Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that > requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists > and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some > definition invented by a human says it can’t. 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohcc0c$1d5g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421985 |
On 6/8/17 2:52 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>>>>>>>> :)) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>>>>>>>> spitting. >>>>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Unplonk" >>>>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>>>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What else can you do >>>>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >>>>>>>> stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your >>>>>>> knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face >>>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is >>>>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex >>>>> exponential). >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph >>>> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the >>>> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily >>>> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are >>>> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century >>>> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to >>>> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that >>>> every high school graduate might know. >>> >>> No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. >> >> You say that the following things are non-existing, to which I would >> simply ask -- how do you KNOW these do not exist? > >> A simpleton's answer would be to say, if these things existed then >> everyone would know about them and see them in everyday life. But of >> course, this is an idiotic complaint, because ... well, neutrinos, >> chemical isomers, genes, prions, >> >> Not everything that really exists is obvious. >> >>> For example: >>> 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> >> You don’t know that. > > 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of space are not detected and are not detectable. They ARE detectable. There are experiments designed to detect them. Neutrinos existed before they were detected. Nobody could say "Neutrinos do not exist because they haven't been detected" before the year of their discovery in experiment. > >> >>> 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. >> >> And you don’t know they don't exist. > > 2. Virtual particles pop in and out of empty space to transmit forces seems magical. Model Mechanics offers a better model for force transmission: Mainly that interacting particles are confined to the distorted geometries of the E-Matrix. > >>> 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. >> >> Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that >> requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists >> and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some >> definition invented by a human says it can’t. > > 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed. And who says that? No physicist says that. Remember, YOUR definitions do not count. You cannot make something exist by YOU making a definition that says it can't happen. Nature doesn't give a damn about your definitions. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 23:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <630140f1-f006-473e-ae04-383caf1abeb2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421989 |
W dniu czwartek, 8 czerwca 2017 22:28:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of space are not detected and are not detectable. > > They ARE detectable. There are experiments designed to detect them. Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. Believe and you'll find proofs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 07:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd1f3f80-81b3-437a-ad73-bcb9af12f722@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421989 |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:28:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/8/17 2:52 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > >>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > >>>>>>>>>>> :)) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > >>>>>>>>>> spitting. > >>>>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Unplonk" > >>>>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > >>>>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What else can you do > >>>>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > >>>>>>>> stupid. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > >>>>>>> knowledge. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > >>>>>> it. > >>>>> > >>>>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > >>>>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > >>>>> exponential). > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jan > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > >>>> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > >>>> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > >>>> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > >>>> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > >>>> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > >>>> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > >>>> every high school graduate might know. > >>> > >>> No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. > >> > >> You say that the following things are non-existing, to which I would > >> simply ask -- how do you KNOW these do not exist? > > > >> A simpleton's answer would be to say, if these things existed then > >> everyone would know about them and see them in everyday life. But of > >> course, this is an idiotic complaint, because ... well, neutrinos, > >> chemical isomers, genes, prions, > >> > >> Not everything that really exists is obvious. > >> > >>> For example: > >>> 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > >> > >> You don’t know that. > > > > 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of space are not detected and are not detectable. > > They ARE detectable. There are experiments designed to detect them. They are not detectable......no successful experiment performed to detect extra dimensions. > > Neutrinos existed before they were detected. Nobody could say "Neutrinos > do not exist because they haven't been detected" before the year of > their discovery in experiment. > > > > >> > >>> 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. > >> > >> And you don’t know they don't exist. > > > > 2. Virtual particles pop in and out of empty space to transmit forces seems magical. Model Mechanics offers a better model for force transmission: Mainly that interacting particles are confined to the distorted geometries of the E-Matrix. > > > >>> 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. > >> > >> Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that > >> requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists > >> and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some > >> definition invented by a human says it can’t. > > > > 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed. > > And who says that? Observations say that. >No physicist says that. That’s irrelevant.....physicists are not infallible. They make mistakes and they don’t have physical explanation for all the processes of nature. > Remember, YOUR definitions do not count. You cannot make something exist > by YOU making a definition that says it can't happen. Nature doesn't > give a damn about your definitions. All objects or processes (except light according to you and the physicists) obey my definition. Nature doesn’t give a damn about your exception.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohee8i$imc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422060 |
kenseto wrote: >> > 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between >> > two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed. >> >> And who says that? > > Observations say that. How large is the change to a constant car speed of exactly 24.8 miles/hour? > All objects or processes (except light according to you and the > physicists) obey my definition. Nature doesn’t give a damn about your > exception. We agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 15:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohegij$7gm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422060 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:28:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/8/17 2:52 PM, kenseto wrote: >> > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> For example: >> >>> 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of >> >>> time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> >> >> >> You don't know that. >> > >> > 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of >> > space are not detected and are not detectable. >> >> They ARE detectable. There are experiments designed to detect them. >They are not detectable......no successful experiment performed to detect >extra dimensions. Assertion is not evidence, Stupid Ken. If you believe that, why not show a list of experiments that looked for extra dimensions and failed? Odd could do the same, showing where some evidence was seen. >> >>> 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. >> >> >> >> And you don't know they don't exist. >> > >> > 2. Virtual particles pop in and out of empty space to transmit forces >> > seems magical. Model Mechanics offers a better model for force transmission: And, of course, it failed completely at that. >> >>> 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the >> >>> speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. >> >> >> >> Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that >> >> requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists >> >> and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some >> >> definition invented by a human says it can't. >> > >> > 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between >> > two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed. >> >> And who says that? >Observations say that. No, they don't. >>No physicist says that. >That's irrelevant.....physicists are not infallible. They make mistakes and >they don't have physical explanation for all the processes of nature. No, they are not infallible, but they are all much smarter than you are. If you say one thing, and real physicists say another, it is almost certain that the physicists are correct, not you. Especially since Model Mechanics is such a failure. >> Remember, YOUR definitions do not count. You cannot make something exist >> by YOU making a definition that says it can't happen. Nature doesn't >> give a damn about your definitions. >All objects or processes (except light according to you and the physicists) >obey my definition. No, they don't. Quit making up crap. >Nature doesn't give a damn about your exception. Nature certainly doesn't give a damn about all your assertions (which are not evidence).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 14:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oherd1$1aji$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422060 |
On 6/9/17 9:55 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:28:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/8/17 2:52 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>>>>>>>>>> :)) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>>>>>>>>>> spitting. >>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Unplonk" >>>>>>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What else can you do >>>>>>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >>>>>>>>>> stupid. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your >>>>>>>>> knowledge. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face >>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is >>>>>>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex >>>>>>> exponential). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph >>>>>> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the >>>>>> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily >>>>>> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are >>>>>> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century >>>>>> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to >>>>>> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that >>>>>> every high school graduate might know. >>>>> >>>>> No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. >>>> >>>> You say that the following things are non-existing, to which I would >>>> simply ask -- how do you KNOW these do not exist? >>> >>>> A simpleton's answer would be to say, if these things existed then >>>> everyone would know about them and see them in everyday life. But of >>>> course, this is an idiotic complaint, because ... well, neutrinos, >>>> chemical isomers, genes, prions, >>>> >>>> Not everything that really exists is obvious. >>>> >>>>> For example: >>>>> 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >>>> >>>> You don’t know that. >>> >>> 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of space are not detected and are not detectable. >> >> They ARE detectable. There are experiments designed to detect them. > > They are not detectable......no successful experiment performed to detect extra dimensions. Those are in progress. As I said to you earlier, in 1940 there were no successful experiments performed to detect neutrinos. This did NOT mean that neutrinos don't exist. They do exist and have always existed, even in 1940. However, they weren't found until the late 1950's. You can't say that neutrinos were undetectable, just because they weren't detected yet. They were detectable, but not detected until 1959. Same thing for extra dimensions. They haven't been detected yet, but this doesn't mean they're not detectable. > >> >> Neutrinos existed before they were detected. Nobody could say "Neutrinos >> do not exist because they haven't been detected" before the year of >> their discovery in experiment. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. >>>> >>>> And you don’t know they don't exist. >>> >>> 2. Virtual particles pop in and out of empty space to transmit forces seems magical. Model Mechanics offers a better model for force transmission: Mainly that interacting particles are confined to the distorted geometries of the E-Matrix. >>> >>>>> 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. >>>> >>>> Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that >>>> requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists >>>> and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some >>>> definition invented by a human says it can’t. >>> >>> 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed. >> >> And who says that? > > Observations say that. No sir. There is NO observation of the speed of light in vacuum being changeable. > >> No physicist says that. > > That’s irrelevant.....physicists are not infallible. They make mistakes and they don’t have physical explanation for all the processes of nature. So it's just you that's saying it, and you're saying it's true by your DEFINITION. > >> Remember, YOUR definitions do not count. You cannot make something exist >> by YOU making a definition that says it can't happen. Nature doesn't >> give a damn about your definitions. > > All objects or processes (except light according to you and the physicists) obey my definition. Nature doesn’t give a damn about your exception. > Nonsense. You cannot make something nonexistent by DEFINING things so that it can't happen. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 19:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oherq9$1b8g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422090 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Observations say that. > > No sir. There is NO observation of the speed of light in vacuum being > changeable. And the reason for which you are quoting 10 kilowatts is??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oheru5$1b8g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422090 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > They were detectable, but not detected until 1959. This sounds imbecilicly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 16:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohh6j0$8ls$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422093 |
The nymshifting troll, Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> writes: >Odd Bodkin wrote: >> They were detectable, but not detected until 1959. >This sounds imbecilicly. English, please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5a4ac12b-2788-4038-8de0-1c3deb9749d3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422060 |
On Friday, June 9, 2017 at 7:55:32 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > They are not detectable......no successful experiment performed to detect extra dimensions. This is NOT how physics works. You insist on running a mysterious enterprise of your own concoction which is a random mix of science and philosophy. You do it because this (in your mind) relieves you from the necessity to actually learn physics and also allows you to designate all that stuff you don't understand as "mathematics" and hence "irrelevant" according to your concoction. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-10 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8f91c023-9879-4d55-a0a9-b2acce128f95@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422099 |
W dniu piątek, 9 czerwca 2017 21:54:42 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > You do it because this (in your mind) relieves you from the necessity to > actually learn physics and also allows you to designate all that stuff > you don't understand as "mathematics" and hence "irrelevant" according to > your concoction. Speaking of "mathematics", it's always good to remind that your idiot guru has rejected its oldest, very important part - because "common sense is a set of prejudices".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 15:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohcc3s$1d5g$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421985 |
On 6/8/17 2:52 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 1:16:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 6/8/17 8:27 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. >>>>>>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! >>>>>>>>>>> :)) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and >>>>>>>>>> spitting. >>>>>>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Unplonk" >>>>>>>>> I have no idea about relativity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. >>>>>>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rave, moron, and spit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What else can you do >>>>>>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly >>>>>>>> stupid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your >>>>>>> knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face >>>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is >>>>> again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex >>>>> exponential). >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>> >>>> Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph >>>> Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the >>>> everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily >>>> understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are >>>> okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century >>>> freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to >>>> physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that >>>> every high school graduate might know. >>> >>> No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. >> >> You say that the following things are non-existing, to which I would >> simply ask -- how do you KNOW these do not exist? > >> A simpleton's answer would be to say, if these things existed then >> everyone would know about them and see them in everyday life. But of >> course, this is an idiotic complaint, because ... well, neutrinos, >> chemical isomers, genes, prions, >> >> Not everything that really exists is obvious. >> >>> For example: >>> 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. >> >> You don’t know that. > > 1. Because extra dimensions (other than the normal three dimensions) of space are not detected and are not detectable. > >> >>> 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. >> >> And you don’t know they don't exist. > > 2. Virtual particles pop in and out of empty space to transmit forces seems magical. Nobody cares what you think "seems magical". Nature does not owe you a catalog of explanations that don't seem magical. You do not know that virtual particles do not exist. You cannot say they do not exist from any basis of knowledge. You can say you don't BELIEVE that they exist, but there are also people who say they don't believe the HIV virus exists. > Model Mechanics offers a better model for force transmission: Mainly that interacting particles are confined to the distorted geometries of the E-Matrix. > >>> 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. >> >> Bullshit. First of all there is no such definition of speed that >> requires that. Secondly, human definitions do not determine what exists >> and does not exist. You can't say something cannot exist because some >> definition invented by a human says it can’t. > > 3. Yes there is such definition for speed......the only speed between two objects (or entities) that is not changeable is zero speed. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8a481f3c-2842-4c43-ba83-d58b56efa9ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421990 |
W dniu czwartek, 8 czerwca 2017 22:29:54 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Nobody cares what you think "seems magical". Nature does not owe you a > catalog of explanations that don't seem magical. Odd, poor idiot, we're not paying nature for any explainations. We're paying physicists for them. If we needed them magical we wouldd hire fantasy writers instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9d5f80db-ac07-4899-bef2-a4424bbd3c7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421945 |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > >>>>>>> :)) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > > >>>>>> spitting. > > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> "Unplonk" > > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > > >>>> > > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > >>> > > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > > >>> > > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > >>>> > > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > > >>> > > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > > >>> > > >>>> What else can you do > > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > >>>> stupid. > > >>> > > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > > >>> knowledge. > > >> > > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > > >> it. > > > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > > exponential). > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > > every high school graduate might know. > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics from 18th and 19th century. > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. This is how the model works. In the days before quantum mechanics there was a similarly "magical" principle of least action. You confuse philosophical issues underlying abstract model use with the scientific ones (a common error around here). > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. No. You presume time is an absolute. It doesn't have to be. > Modern aether theories such as Model Mechanics eliminated these non-existing mathematical objects Model Mechanics did eliminate them and is also worthless junk. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-08 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8fe15d5b-a4e5-4447-a100-7b374fe69a96@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421980 |
On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:56:26 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:27:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:49:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > On 6/7/17 2:52 PM, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 10:53:13 PM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > >> W dniu środa, 7 czerwca 2017 00:25:53 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > > > >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:42:31 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 20:33:02 UTC+2 użytkownik Wozniak napisał: > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 7:44:08 AM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 18:30:27 UTC+2 użytkownik einstein....@gmail.com napisał: > > > >>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 11:37:04 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 11:21:37 UTC+2 użytkownik Groupie napisał: > > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, June 5, 2017 at 8:28:13 PM UTC-10, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>> W dniu wtorek, 6 czerwca 2017 07:56:13 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik napisał: > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dne 06/06/2017 v 07:49 Eckard B napsal(a): > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't the expression TOTAL NONSENSE indicate that Ed Lake might be wrong? > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The topic "reality vs. math" did certainly deserve being better discussed, cf. e.g. FQXi. For instance, the late Einstein admitted that the now worries him > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> seriously. Why? Reality is open in Popper's sense. Science can merely provide models. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Better wording would be > > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Reality versus physical theories", > > > >>>>>>>>>>> as theories are reality models, > > > >>>>>>>>>>> involving mathematical description. > > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Math itself has nothing to do with reality. > > > >>>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>>> Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that > > > >>>>>>>>>> your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > > > >>>>>>>>>> very important part. Because "common sense is > > > >>>>>>>>>> a collection of prejudices". > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> "You're dumber than dirt." > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> You can't deny, but you can rave and spit. > > > >>>>>>>> As expected from a fanatic idiot. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> You really are one malignantly stupid speck of fecal matter! > > > >>>>>>> :)) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> You really can do nothing except raving and > > > >>>>>> spitting. > > > >>>>>> As expected from a relativistic moron. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> "Unplonk" > > > >>>>> I have no idea about relativity. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Don't worry. Nobody of your fanatic bunch has. > > > >>> > > > >>> ...said Maciej Wozniak, who cannot answer simple test questions. > > > >>> > > > >>>>> But it's easy to see that you are just an angry idiot. > > > >>>>> You're probably angry at everyone else because, justifiably, they make you feel incredibly stupid. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Rave, moron, and spit. > > > >>> > > > >>> If he wants to do that, it's none of your business. Just keep your distance. > > > >>> > > > >>>> What else can you do > > > >>>> meeting someone that makes you feel incredibly > > > >>>> stupid. > > > >>> > > > >>> But it is you who cannot answer simple questions designed to test your > > > >>> knowledge. > > > >> > > > >> You're too stupid to design a question, Jan. Face > > > >> it. > > > > > > > > No, my question was perfectly legit, stop lying about it. Here it is > > > > again: calculate the curvature of the graph of exp(z) (the complex > > > > exponential). > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > Maciej lives for the same kind of world where reside Ken Seto and Ralph > > > Rabbidge and Robert Winn and the like. They are the advocates of the > > > everyman, people who want science to be not only accessible but easily > > > understandable to all. To this end, they insist that owe of most people are > > > okay in their day to day existence using nothing but 19th century > > > freshman physics and common sense, then this should be all there is to > > > physics. Lowest common denominator physics, the practical science that > > > every high school graduate might know. > > > > No idiot.... we object to the use of non-existing mathematical objects to explain the processes of nature. For example: > > 1. Physicists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. But there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > Then kindly complain to Lagrange (who needs one 6-dimensional space > for each particle + 1 time dimension) and to Hamilton (who needs (2n+1)- > dimensional space in the form of an _incompressible fluid_ (so a > "fictitious" one) for n particles, etc. All this is classical mechanics > from 18th and 19th century. All these are mathematical curiosities.....all the processes of nature can be explained by three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. > > 2. virtual particles pop in and out of empty space. > > This is how the model works. In the days before quantum mechanics there > was a similarly "magical" principle of least action. You confuse > philosophical issues underlying abstract model use with the scientific > ones (a common error around here). The point is: There is no need for an abstract model. The math of QM can be explained by a real physical model. > > > 3. Universal constant for the speed of light.....by definition the speed of anything (including the speed of light) is changeable. > > No. You presume time is an absolute. It doesn’t have to be. But time is absolute.....the GPS uses absolute time to synch the GPS with the ground clock as follows: The GPS second was redefined to have 4.4647 more periods of Cs 133 radiation. This makes the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second.....IOW, the redefined GPS second contains the same amount of absolute time as a standard ground clock second. Also the math of LT confirm the existence of absolute time according to the following equation: Delta(t’)=gamma*Delta(t) What this equation says is that Delta(t’) contains the same amount of absolute time as gamma*Delta(t) > > > Modern aether theories such as Model Mechanics eliminated these non-existing mathematical objects > > Model Mechanics did eliminate them and is also worthless junk. > > -- > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web