Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423629 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-29 10:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-07-03 14:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 116 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
My web site Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 10:00 -0700
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 19:28 +0200
Re: My web site Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-29 19:44 +0000
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 15:54 -0500
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 16:10 -0500
Re: My web site Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-30 00:23 +0200
Re: My web site Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-06-30 01:24 +0200
Re: My web site Buck Millard <uiidbm@apsuw.dl> - 2017-07-02 11:02 +0000
Re: My web site Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-02 14:06 +0200
Re: My web site benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-06-29 22:34 -0400
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 10:52 +0200
Re: My web site Jim Petroff <ruuri@twjotr.eo> - 2017-06-30 09:01 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-30 02:04 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-30 05:13 -0700
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 14:38 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:22 -0500
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-01 14:17 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 00:28 +0000
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 23:49 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 14:14 -0500
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-01 23:31 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 02:49 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-02 23:14 -0700
Re: My web site Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-03 04:09 -0700
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-03 04:44 -0700
Re: My web site Oveho Anými Trofyzikovu <zfeuur@ceuuwi.ku> - 2017-07-03 17:39 +0000
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 21:22 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-04 13:25 -0700
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-04 18:02 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 00:04 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-04 23:48 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 00:09 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-05 23:19 -0700
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 14:37 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:18 -0500
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 18:26 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:41 -0500
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-01 16:48 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 14:11 -0500
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 18:19 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 02:53 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 05:33 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 12:44 -0500
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 13:17 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 21:34 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-05 04:39 -0700
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-05 13:12 +0000
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 12:48 -0500
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-05 14:16 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 00:24 +0000
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:12 -0500
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-07-06 22:16 -0400
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-01 14:13 -0700
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 15:28 -0400
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 21:50 +0200
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 15:27 -0500
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 23:02 +0200
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 18:47 -0400
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 23:00 +0200
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-30 08:10 -0700
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-30 16:19 +0000
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:24 -0500
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-06-30 17:51 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:25 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-01 09:50 -0700
Re: My web site Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-01 20:39 +0200
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:44 -0500
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-01 04:31 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-01 05:28 -0700
Re: My web site Gibutsi Fumihazu <uft@wwhm.cu> - 2017-07-01 12:47 +0000
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-01 14:22 +0000
Re: My web site Gibutsi Fumihazu <uft@wwhm.cu> - 2017-07-01 14:50 +0000
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 01:17 +0000
Re: My web site Buck Millard <uiidbm@apsuw.dl> - 2017-07-02 10:15 +0000
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 15:28 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 09:47 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 14:15 -0500
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-02 23:23 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 18:35 -0700
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-03 03:07 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-02 18:27 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 02:53 +0000
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 05:36 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 12:47 -0500
Re: My web site kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-03 13:07 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 21:26 +0000
Re: My web site moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-04 01:13 +0000
Re: My web site Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-30 00:21 +0200
Re: My web site Gibutsi Fumihazu <uft@wwhm.cu> - 2017-07-01 08:58 +0000
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 08:15 +0200
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-29 23:34 -0700
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-29 23:31 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 11:36 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-30 04:50 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 01:13 +0000
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-01 14:20 -0700
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 00:28 +0000
Re: My web site RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-30 16:29 -0700
Re: My web site "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-29 21:03 +0200
Re: My web site Lord Kronos Prime <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-06-29 13:01 -0700
Re: My web site Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 09:55 -0700
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 14:51 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:10 -0500
Re: My web site benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-30 18:14 -0400
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 14:46 -0500
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-01 09:42 +0200
Re: My web site Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 10:09 -0700
Re: My web site Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-06-30 20:37 +0200
Re: My web site Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-30 14:25 -0500
Re: My web site "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-06-30 14:21 -0700
Re: My web site Eckard B <eckard.blumschein@arcor.de> - 2017-06-30 14:54 -0700
Re: My web site Omar Shabsigh <omar.shabsigh@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 10:30 -0700
Re: My web site Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-07-02 20:27 +0200
Re: My web site mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-07-02 13:04 -0700
Re: My web site Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 14:29 -0700
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-02 18:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2f33591-b3da-4ecf-8d19-08497b899aef@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423830 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: > > On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad > >> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. > > > > What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you > > think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that > > means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who > > doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail > > Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. > > > > Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't > explain it to you. > > This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a > proving ground to show what you know. > > What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a > subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) > taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not > here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the > explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your > convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes > it to you to present any of it HERE. If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? > > Now, since you say you have a wall full of books, let's pick a book we > both have and then as we READ IT TOGETHER, then I'm happy to discuss > what's in the book with you. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 02:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojcbis$nbm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423840 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad >>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>> >>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you >>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that >>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who >>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail >>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>> >> >> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >> explain it to you. >> >> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a >> proving ground to show what you know. >> >> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a >> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) >> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not >> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes >> it to you to present any of it HERE. > > If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that > his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your > correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding > of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's YOUR phobia, not mine. > >> >> Now, since you say you have a wall full of books, let's pick a book we >> both have and then as we READ IT TOGETHER, then I'm happy to discuss >> what's in the book with you. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-07-03 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80913b8c-b337-4390-8b1f-7018113174aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423846 |
On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: > >>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad > >>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. > >>> > >>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you > >>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that > >>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who > >>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail > >>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. > >>> > >> > >> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't > >> explain it to you. > >> > >> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a > >> proving ground to show what you know. > >> > >> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a > >> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) > >> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not > >> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the > >> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your > >> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes > >> it to you to present any of it HERE. > > > > If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that > > his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your > > correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding > > of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? > > Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's > YOUR phobia, not mine. The SR books are wrong and incomplete. That’s why we are pointing out to you. That’s why I invented IRT to correct the problem. > > > > >> > >> Now, since you say you have a wall full of books, let's pick a book we > >> both have and then as we READ IT TOGETHER, then I'm happy to discuss > >> what's in the book with you. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2017-07-03 12:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojdvq4$173u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423856 |
On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad >>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>>>> >>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you >>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that >>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who >>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail >>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >>>> explain it to you. >>>> >>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a >>>> proving ground to show what you know. >>>> >>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a >>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) >>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not >>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes >>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. >>> >>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that >>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your >>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding >>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? >> >> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's >> YOUR phobia, not mine. > > The SR books are wrong and incomplete. This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. You are asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. > That’s why we are pointing out to you. That’s why I invented IRT to correct the problem. The only problem here is that you don't understand SR. This is because you've never read anything about SR. Only a flaming idiot would say, "Rather than reading a book to understand a subject, I'm just going to skip all that by inventing my own idea and declaring that the subject I know nothing about is wrong." The flaming idiot here is you, because that is what you do. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Now, since you say you have a wall full of books, let's pick a book we >>>> both have and then as we READ IT TOGETHER, then I'm happy to discuss >>>> what's in the book with you. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-07-03 13:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <388946a7-9d15-47c1-bc35-751a269d6f8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423874 |
On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: > >>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad > >>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. > >>>>> > >>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you > >>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that > >>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who > >>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail > >>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't > >>>> explain it to you. > >>>> > >>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a > >>>> proving ground to show what you know. > >>>> > >>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a > >>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) > >>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not > >>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the > >>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your > >>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes > >>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. > >>> > >>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that > >>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your > >>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding > >>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? > >> > >> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's > >> YOUR phobia, not mine. > > > > The SR books are wrong and incomplete. > > This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > Yes it is about that. >You are > asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your > convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. You claimed that what I said about SR is wrong so you need to tell me why it is wrong. If you don’t want to then fuck off and don’t answer my posts. > > > That’s why we are pointing out to you. That’s why I invented IRT to correct the problem. > > The only problem here is that you don't understand SR. This is because > you've never read anything about SR. Only a flaming idiot would say, > "Rather than reading a book to understand a subject, I'm just going to > skip all that by inventing my own idea and declaring that the subject I > know nothing about is wrong." > > The flaming idiot here is you, because that is what you do. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Now, since you say you have a wall full of books, let's pick a book we > >>>> both have and then as we READ IT TOGETHER, then I'm happy to discuss > >>>> what's in the book with you. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2017-07-03 21:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojed88$1sh3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423889 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad >>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you >>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that >>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who >>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail >>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >>>>>> explain it to you. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a >>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a >>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) >>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not >>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes >>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. >>>>> >>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that >>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your >>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding >>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? >>>> >>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's >>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. >>> >>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. >> >> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > > > Yes it is about that. > >> You are >> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your >> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. > > No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. You're a basket case. > You claimed that what I said about SR is wrong so you need to tell me why > it is wrong. If you don’t want to then fuck off and don’t answer my posts. > >> >>> That’s why we are pointing out to you. That’s why I invented IRT to correct the problem. >> >> The only problem here is that you don't understand SR. This is because >> you've never read anything about SR. Only a flaming idiot would say, >> "Rather than reading a book to understand a subject, I'm just going to >> skip all that by inventing my own idea and declaring that the subject I >> know nothing about is wrong." >> >> The flaming idiot here is you, because that is what you do. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, since you say you have a wall full of books, let's pick a book we >>>>>> both have and then as we READ IT TOGETHER, then I'm happy to discuss >>>>>> what's in the book with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-07-05 04:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c20230a4-7e06-4536-a00b-cb08766a9f01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423896 |
On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: > >>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad > >>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you > >>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that > >>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who > >>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail > >>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't > >>>>>> explain it to you. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a > >>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a > >>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) > >>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not > >>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the > >>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your > >>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes > >>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. > >>>>> > >>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that > >>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your > >>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding > >>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? > >>>> > >>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's > >>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. > >>> > >>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. > >> > >> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > > > > > Yes it is about that. > > > >> You are > >> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your > >> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. > > > > No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. > > Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding > relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. > > You're a basket case. You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a woodworker. So I don’t take you seriously. So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 13:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojiojq$n7l$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #423998 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding >> relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. >> You're a basket case. >You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a woodworker. >So I don't take you seriously. Of course not. That's because you are a basket case. How does it feel to be dumber than a woodworker? (no offence, Odd) > So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity. And he answered you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 12:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojj8q4$12am$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423998 |
On 7/5/17 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad >>>>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you >>>>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that >>>>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who >>>>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail >>>>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >>>>>>>> explain it to you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a >>>>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a >>>>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) >>>>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not >>>>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >>>>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >>>>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes >>>>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that >>>>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your >>>>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding >>>>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's >>>>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. >>>>> >>>>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. >>>> >>>> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > >>> >>> Yes it is about that. >>> >>>> You are >>>> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your >>>> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. >>> >>> No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. >> >> Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding >> relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. >> >> You're a basket case. > > You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a woodworker. Yes. > So I don’t take you seriously. Alright. Don't take me seriously. Instead, go to a book and find out. > So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity. What would be the point of my telling you my understanding of relativity if you don't take what I say seriously. Instead of playing such children's games with me, asking me to do things you're not going to take seriously, then go find a book that you WILL take seriously. If there is nothing you will take seriously except your own ideas, then you are in a hole you'll never get out of. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fbf67152-4cf5-4a05-872c-e70071838e81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #424031 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:48:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/17 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad > >>>>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you > >>>>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that > >>>>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who > >>>>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail > >>>>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't > >>>>>>>> explain it to you. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a > >>>>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a > >>>>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) > >>>>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not > >>>>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the > >>>>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your > >>>>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes > >>>>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that > >>>>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your > >>>>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding > >>>>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's > >>>>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. > >>>>> > >>>>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. > >>>> > >>>> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > > >>> > >>> Yes it is about that. > >>> > >>>> You are > >>>> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your > >>>> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. > >>> > >>> No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. > >> > >> Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding > >> relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. > >> > >> You're a basket case. > > > > You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a woodworker. > > Yes. > > > So I don’t take you seriously. > > Alright. Don't take me seriously. I won’t....you are just an ignorant wood-worker.....no knowledge of physics. >Instead, go to a book and find out. > > > So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity. > > What would be the point of my telling you my understanding of relativity > if you don't take what I say seriously. Instead of playing such > children's games with me, asking me to do things you're not going to > take seriously, then go find a book that you WILL take seriously. > > If there is nothing you will take seriously except your own ideas, then > you are in a hole you'll never get out of. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 00:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojk00d$78f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424064 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:48:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/17 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad >>>>>>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you >>>>>>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that >>>>>>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who >>>>>>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail >>>>>>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >>>>>>>>>> explain it to you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a >>>>>>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a >>>>>>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) >>>>>>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not >>>>>>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >>>>>>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >>>>>>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes >>>>>>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that >>>>>>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your >>>>>>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding >>>>>>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's >>>>>>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > >>>>> >>>>> Yes it is about that. >>>>> >>>>>> You are >>>>>> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your >>>>>> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. >>>>> >>>>> No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. >>>> >>>> Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding >>>> relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. >>>> >>>> You're a basket case. >>> >>> You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a woodworker. >> >> Yes. >> >>> So I don’t take you seriously. >> >> Alright. Don't take me seriously. > > I won’t....you are just an ignorant wood-worker.....no knowledge of physics. I've read more about physics than you have. > >> Instead, go to a book and find out. >> >>> So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity. >> >> What would be the point of my telling you my understanding of relativity >> if you don't take what I say seriously. Instead of playing such >> children's games with me, asking me to do things you're not going to >> take seriously, then go find a book that you WILL take seriously. >> >> If there is nothing you will take seriously except your own ideas, then >> you are in a hole you'll never get out of. >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2017-07-06 09:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojlgh9$d6j$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #424064 |
On 7/5/17 4:16 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 1:48:56 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 7/5/17 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word salad >>>>>>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you can't, you >>>>>>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious chants that >>>>>>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a person who >>>>>>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the Hail >>>>>>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >>>>>>>>>> explain it to you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is not a >>>>>>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for learning a >>>>>>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading books and b) >>>>>>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available THERE and not >>>>>>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >>>>>>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >>>>>>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. Nobody owes >>>>>>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell anybody that >>>>>>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to give your >>>>>>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your understanding >>>>>>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us know? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. That's >>>>>>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. >>>>>> >>>>>> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > >>>>> >>>>> Yes it is about that. >>>>> >>>>>> You are >>>>>> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your >>>>>> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. >>>>> >>>>> No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. >>>> >>>> Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding >>>> relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. >>>> >>>> You're a basket case. >>> >>> You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a woodworker. >> >> Yes. >> >>> So I don’t take you seriously. >> >> Alright. Don't take me seriously. > > I won’t....you are just an ignorant wood-worker.....no knowledge of physics. As I said, if there is nothing you will take seriously except your own ideas, then you are in a hole you'll never get out of. > >> Instead, go to a book and find out. >> >>> So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity. >> >> What would be the point of my telling you my understanding of relativity >> if you don't take what I say seriously. Instead of playing such >> children's games with me, asking me to do things you're not going to >> take seriously, then go find a book that you WILL take seriously. >> >> If there is nothing you will take seriously except your own ideas, then >> you are in a hole you'll never get out of. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 22:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <595eeef7$0$28581$b1db1813$79461190@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #424031 |
On 7/5/2017 1:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 7/5/17 6:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Monday, July 3, 2017 at 1:44:39 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 7/3/17 7:33 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 10:53:20 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, July 2, 2017 at 3:11:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 7/1/17 3:48 PM, benj wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2017 3:41 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Just because YOU don't understand it does not mean it is word >>>>>>>>>>> salad >>>>>>>>>>> with no reason or logic or verifiable facts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What you mean is that because I ask you to EXPLAIN it and you >>>>>>>>>> can't, you >>>>>>>>>> think that means that by simply repeating your religious >>>>>>>>>> chants that >>>>>>>>>> means you understand it and I don't? This is like saying a >>>>>>>>>> person who >>>>>>>>>> doubts God doesn't understand because they can't chant all the >>>>>>>>>> Hail >>>>>>>>>> Marys and the like. I know I"m wasting my time here. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ben, mark the difference between can't explain it to you and won't >>>>>>>>> explain it to you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is usenet. It is not a library, it is not a school, it is >>>>>>>>> not a >>>>>>>>> proving ground to show what you know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What I'm telling you is that the most popular vehicle for >>>>>>>>> learning a >>>>>>>>> subject like relativity and quantum mechanics is a) reading >>>>>>>>> books and b) >>>>>>>>> taking classes. That is why the explanations are available >>>>>>>>> THERE and not >>>>>>>>> here. If that doesn't suit you and you want people to prove the >>>>>>>>> explanations are sensible by presenting them to you HERE at your >>>>>>>>> convenience, then you are going to be gravely disappointed. >>>>>>>>> Nobody owes >>>>>>>>> it to you to present any of it HERE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don’t want to involve in a discussion then don’t tell >>>>>>>> anybody that >>>>>>>> his understanding of relativity is wrong and then refused to >>>>>>>> give your >>>>>>>> correct understanding relativity. How do we know that your >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> of relativity is correct if you don’t write it down and let us >>>>>>>> know? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because it IS written down. In books. Which you are terrified of. >>>>>>> That's >>>>>>> YOUR phobia, not mine. >>>>>> >>>>>> The SR books are wrong and incomplete. >>>>> >>>>> This isn't about whether you think relativity is wrong or not. > >>>> >>>> Yes it is about that. >>>> >>>>> You are >>>>> asking people to explain what SR says here on usenet, for your >>>>> convenience. Ain't gonna happen. SR is explained in books and classes. >>>> >>>> No moron....I didn’t ask people what SR says. >>> >>> Your mind is mush. Just above you asked for my "correct understanding >>> relativity". Your words -- exact words -- are quoted. >>> >>> You're a basket case. >> >> You said that my understanding of relativity is wrong. You are a >> woodworker. > > Yes. > >> So I don’t take you seriously. > > Alright. Don't take me seriously. Instead, go to a book and find out. > >> So I asked you to tell us your understanding of relativity. > > What would be the point of my telling you my understanding of relativity > if you don't take what I say seriously. Instead of playing such > children's games with me, asking me to do things you're not going to > take seriously, then go find a book that you WILL take seriously. > > If there is nothing you will take seriously except your own ideas, then > you are in a hole you'll never get out of. > > Seto Odd's understanding of relativity is easily summed up in one word. Zero.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-01 14:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1de39496-1ae4-4ca3-b804-eed4d36058aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #423697 |
W dniu piątek, 30 czerwca 2017 21:18:23 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 6/30/17 1:37 PM, benj wrote: > > On 6/30/2017 7:36 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote: > >>> W dniu piątek, 30 czerwca 2017 10:52:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Poutnik > >>> napisał: > >>>> Dne 30.6.2017 v 04:34 benj napsal(a): > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> What Odd fails to mention in his fantasy is that the days when > >>>>> Physicists did physics and engineers did engineering ended with WWII. > >>>> > >>>> Such a statement is false, as I know many physicist doing physics > >>>> and many engineers doing engineering. > >>> > >>> But, as the mystical mumble of physicists has become worthless, we > >>> have no choice but to do their job ourself. > >>> > >> > >> Yah another shining example of hubris. What gives? > >> > > Says the high priest of physics insane mumbo jumbo. > > There's nothing mumbo jumbo about it. Even a woodworker can understand > it with a little effort and attention. Odd, poor idiot, you understand nothing. Now, there may be the less agile > of mind or the lazy who claim that, because they do not understand it, > then NOBODY can understand it, and it is therefore mumbo jumbo. Oppositely. A mumbling moron imagines, that if he finds some sense in his mumble it must be incredibly wise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 15:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5956a651$0$41906$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #423657 |
On 6/30/2017 4:52 AM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 30.6.2017 v 04:34 benj napsal(a): > >>> >> What Odd fails to mention in his fantasy is that the days when >> Physicists did physics and engineers did engineering ended with WWII. > > Such a statement is false, as I know many physicist doing physics > and many engineers doing engineering. Pouter you did not carefully read what I said. Sure some engineers do engineering and some physicists to physics, but that is not the point. I didn't say that everything was reversed! But prior to WWII what you say was largely the case. This is why when radar needed to invent the magnitron it took physicists to do it because engineers simply did not understand Maxwell to the level needed to do it. But Post WWII things changed. Physicists mostly gave up on Maxwell as being "classic" and old while engineers were all trained extensively in EM. The result of course is that EM research switched from physics to Engineering. Research and advances coming form engineers and their institutions rather than from physics and theirs. Same in Solid State physics. > This does not mean a physicist cannot become engineer nor vice versa, > doing both. But it is rather exception than rule > and they are rarely very good in both domains. Obviously engineers mostly do engineering and physicists, physics but it is the exceptions that publish the advances and that is the question here. OF course an experimental physicist needs to be good in both physics and engineering to build and understand experiments that actually work and are credible. Theoretical physicists, on the other hand only need to be good at math and have a very active fantasy life. Logical thinking is not required and they do not need to understand how a light switch works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 21:50 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oj69qt$sie$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #423701 |
Dne 30/06/2017 v 21:28 benj napsal(a): > On 6/30/2017 4:52 AM, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 30.6.2017 v 04:34 benj napsal(a): >> >>>> >>> What Odd fails to mention in his fantasy is that the days when >>> Physicists did physics and engineers did engineering ended with WWII. >> >> Such a statement is false, as I know many physicist doing physics >> and many engineers doing engineering. > > Pouter you did not carefully read what I said. Sure some engineers do > engineering and some physicists to physics, but that is not the point. I > didn't say that everything was reversed! But prior to WWII what you say > was largely the case. This is why when radar needed to invent the > magnitron it took physicists to do it because engineers simply did not > understand Maxwell to the level needed to do it. But Post WWII things > changed. Physicists mostly gave up on Maxwell as being "classic" and old > while engineers were all trained extensively in EM. The result of course > is that EM research switched from physics to Engineering. Research and > advances coming form engineers and their institutions rather than from > physics and theirs. Same in Solid State physics. But this is nothing other than misunderstood role of science and engineering. Scientists know it well, but physicists have frequent trouble in that. At EM, there is scientific research and engineering research. The scientific research is mostly done, at least at fields interesting for engineers. And at solid state physics, physical research is very active there. > >> This does not mean a physicist cannot become engineer nor vice versa, >> doing both. But it is rather exception than rule >> and they are rarely very good in both domains. > > Obviously engineers mostly do engineering and physicists, physics but it > is the exceptions that publish the advances and that is the question > here. OF course an experimental physicist needs to be good in both > physics and engineering to build and understand experiments that > actually work and are credible. Theoretical physicists, on the other > hand only need to be good at math and have a very active fantasy life. > Logical thinking is not required and they do not need to understand how > a light switch works. > Many engineers have very vague idea what is theoretica physics about and what is required from theoretical physicists. Same as experimental physicists must be very good in engineering and physics, theoretical physicists must be very good in physics, math and logic. Some engineers have very good Fantasy life I see. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 15:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oj6c8a$rr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423702 |
On 6/30/17 2:50 PM, Poutnik wrote: > Dne 30/06/2017 v 21:28 benj napsal(a): >> On 6/30/2017 4:52 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>> Dne 30.6.2017 v 04:34 benj napsal(a): >>> >>>>> >>>> What Odd fails to mention in his fantasy is that the days when >>>> Physicists did physics and engineers did engineering ended with WWII. >>> >>> Such a statement is false, as I know many physicist doing physics >>> and many engineers doing engineering. >> >> Pouter you did not carefully read what I said. Sure some engineers do >> engineering and some physicists to physics, but that is not the point. I >> didn't say that everything was reversed! But prior to WWII what you say >> was largely the case. This is why when radar needed to invent the >> magnitron it took physicists to do it because engineers simply did not >> understand Maxwell to the level needed to do it. But Post WWII things >> changed. Physicists mostly gave up on Maxwell as being "classic" and old >> while engineers were all trained extensively in EM. The result of course >> is that EM research switched from physics to Engineering. Research and >> advances coming form engineers and their institutions rather than from >> physics and theirs. Same in Solid State physics. > > But this is nothing other than misunderstood role > of science and engineering. Scientists know it well, > but physicists have frequent trouble in that. > > At EM, there is scientific research and engineering research. > The scientific research is mostly done, > at least at fields interesting for engineers. > > And at solid state physics, physical research is very active there. > >> >>> This does not mean a physicist cannot become engineer nor vice versa, >>> doing both. But it is rather exception than rule >>> and they are rarely very good in both domains. >> >> Obviously engineers mostly do engineering and physicists, physics but it >> is the exceptions that publish the advances and that is the question >> here. OF course an experimental physicist needs to be good in both >> physics and engineering to build and understand experiments that >> actually work and are credible. Theoretical physicists, on the other >> hand only need to be good at math and have a very active fantasy life. >> Logical thinking is not required and they do not need to understand how >> a light switch works. >> > Many engineers have very vague idea what is theoretica physics about > and what is required from theoretical physicists. > > Same as experimental physicists must be very good in engineering > and physics, theoretical physicists must be very good > in physics, math and logic. As with all professions, there are gradients. Among physicists, there are: - bleeding edge theoretical physicists, who are not at all interested in applications to benefit human existence (here's where an engineer might gasp and cry out, "Blasphemy!") but are only interested in knowledge for its own sake. These will often plumb the outskirts where there is little chance to test their ideas in the next decade or two, and these include people like Susskind and Randall who look at multiverse possibilities. - theorists in closer contact with experimental test, sometimes called phenomenologists. Solid state theorists or theorists calculating expected signals at particle colliders are good examples of this. Kip Thorne of the LIGO team is another. The BCS superconductivity theory is another. - fundamental experimentalists, who build equipment purely to test physics principles without much interest or near term objective of practical applications. High energy particle physics working at colliders are good examples, as are those who do tests of general relativity. Many of these have excellent engineering skills, ranging from fast electronics to massively parallel computing and neural network computer work, from material science to cryogenics. - applied experimentalists, who are looking to see how theoretical principles can be turned into potentially interesting applications. Thin film or surface physicists are good examples. Here the overlap with engineers is strong, because they may in fact build the first-of-kind applications that can be then commercialized, and many of them hold patents. Again, the engineering abilities here are strong but peculiar to the needs of their work, and they are not certified to be broad-application engineers outside of their interest. Some physicists are gifted with skills in more than one area. Fermi is an excellent example of a polymath physicist. All physicists are expected to have basic competencies in more than one of these areas, though many do not practice those competencies regularly. > > Some engineers have very good Fantasy life I see. Indeed. It's like some of them are not satisfied with engineering, their own chosen professions. They have to take on the mantle of another profession they are in fact not well trained for. For an engineer to say, "I am in fact more than an engineer. I am a 'practical physicist' and can do anything a physicist does and better," is evidence of crippling egotism, and I wonder if training in engineering breeds that as a personality trait. I'll wait here for some engineer to say that he is better equipped to be a woodworker than most woodworkers because, c'mon, how hard can it be? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 23:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oj6e24$abs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #423704 |
Dne 30/06/2017 v 22:27 Odd Bodkin napsal(a): > On 6/30/17 2:50 PM, Poutnik wrote: >>> >> Many engineers have very vague idea what is theoretica physics about >> and what is required from theoretical physicists. >> >> Same as experimental physicists must be very good in engineering >> and physics, theoretical physicists must be very good >> in physics, math and logic. > > As with all professions, there are gradients. No doubts. -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 18:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5956d4f1$0$10629$c3e8da3$5d8fb80f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #423704 |
On 6/30/2017 4:27 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 6/30/17 2:50 PM, Poutnik wrote: >> Dne 30/06/2017 v 21:28 benj napsal(a): >>> On 6/30/2017 4:52 AM, Poutnik wrote: >>>> Dne 30.6.2017 v 04:34 benj napsal(a): >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> What Odd fails to mention in his fantasy is that the days when >>>>> Physicists did physics and engineers did engineering ended with WWII. >>>> >>>> Such a statement is false, as I know many physicist doing physics >>>> and many engineers doing engineering. >>> >>> Pouter you did not carefully read what I said. Sure some engineers do >>> engineering and some physicists to physics, but that is not the point. I >>> didn't say that everything was reversed! But prior to WWII what you say >>> was largely the case. This is why when radar needed to invent the >>> magnitron it took physicists to do it because engineers simply did not >>> understand Maxwell to the level needed to do it. But Post WWII things >>> changed. Physicists mostly gave up on Maxwell as being "classic" and old >>> while engineers were all trained extensively in EM. The result of course >>> is that EM research switched from physics to Engineering. Research and >>> advances coming form engineers and their institutions rather than from >>> physics and theirs. Same in Solid State physics. >> >> But this is nothing other than misunderstood role >> of science and engineering. Scientists know it well, >> but physicists have frequent trouble in that. >> >> At EM, there is scientific research and engineering research. >> The scientific research is mostly done, >> at least at fields interesting for engineers. >> >> And at solid state physics, physical research is very active there. >> >>> >>>> This does not mean a physicist cannot become engineer nor vice versa, >>>> doing both. But it is rather exception than rule >>>> and they are rarely very good in both domains. >>> >>> Obviously engineers mostly do engineering and physicists, physics but it >>> is the exceptions that publish the advances and that is the question >>> here. OF course an experimental physicist needs to be good in both >>> physics and engineering to build and understand experiments that >>> actually work and are credible. Theoretical physicists, on the other >>> hand only need to be good at math and have a very active fantasy life. >>> Logical thinking is not required and they do not need to understand how >>> a light switch works. >>> >> Many engineers have very vague idea what is theoretica physics about >> and what is required from theoretical physicists. >> >> Same as experimental physicists must be very good in engineering >> and physics, theoretical physicists must be very good >> in physics, math and logic. > > > As with all professions, there are gradients. > > Among physicists, there are: > - bleeding edge theoretical physicists, who are not at all interested in > applications to benefit human existence (here's where an engineer might > gasp and cry out, "Blasphemy!") but are only interested in knowledge for > its own sake. These will often plumb the outskirts where there is little > chance to test their ideas in the next decade or two, and these include > people like Susskind and Randall who look at multiverse possibilities. > > - theorists in closer contact with experimental test, sometimes called > phenomenologists. Solid state theorists or theorists calculating > expected signals at particle colliders are good examples of this. Kip > Thorne of the LIGO team is another. The BCS superconductivity theory is > another. > > - fundamental experimentalists, who build equipment purely to test > physics principles without much interest or near term objective of > practical applications. High energy particle physics working at > colliders are good examples, as are those who do tests of general > relativity. Many of these have excellent engineering skills, ranging > from fast electronics to massively parallel computing and neural network > computer work, from material science to cryogenics. > > - applied experimentalists, who are looking to see how theoretical > principles can be turned into potentially interesting applications. Thin > film or surface physicists are good examples. Here the overlap with > engineers is strong, because they may in fact build the first-of-kind > applications that can be then commercialized, and many of them hold > patents. Again, the engineering abilities here are strong but peculiar > to the needs of their work, and they are not certified to be > broad-application engineers outside of their interest. > > Some physicists are gifted with skills in more than one area. Fermi is > an excellent example of a polymath physicist. All physicists are > expected to have basic competencies in more than one of these areas, > though many do not practice those competencies regularly. All the above is of course true except it does leave out a certain region in both physics and engineering where the person has their head up their own butt and have managed to score some job where they can get by with bullshit and handwaving and very little competence in their chosen field. (It's a human thing) >> Some engineers have very good Fantasy life I see. > > Indeed. It's like some of them are not satisfied with engineering, their > own chosen professions. They have to take on the mantle of another > profession they are in fact not well trained for. Um perhaps not by choice, but by necessity as much of physics attempts to wander off into illogic, fantasy, and mathematical structures with zero relationship to the real world. Physics unlike math is supposed to be constantly tested against the real world. And if the physicists aren't willing, then you have to do it yourself. > For an engineer to say, "I am in fact more than an engineer. I am a > 'practical physicist' and can do anything a physicist does and better," > is evidence of crippling egotism, and I wonder if training in > engineering breeds that as a personality trait. Consider: An engineer has training both in the practical aspects of engineering an real devices as well as some basics in the science and mathematics that underlie them. A physicist interested in experimental physics may be similar, but those interested in the theoretical physics have training in the previous science principles and in advanced mathematics. Their training in practical reality is nil. Hence they are not at ALL equipped to do what an engineer or experimental physicist can do even with their lesser understanding of math and science theory. So it depends on what you expect. If it's unsubstantiated fantasy the theoretical physicist wins hands down. Oddly the theoreticians must blindly accept on faith the data that experimentalists hand them upon which they build their fantasies. Not a clue how to verify any of it. > I'll wait here for some engineer to say that he is better equipped to be > a woodworker than most woodworkers because, c'mon, how hard can it be? Hey, I"m a pretty good wood worker and maker of fine guitars and other musical instruments! But then I really don't have the qualifications for a woodworking job, That clearly requires a Ph.D. in philosophy or Elizabethan English literature! That's how hard it is!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-30 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oj6dtr$abs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #423702 |
Dne 30/06/2017 v 21:50 Poutnik napsal(a): > > But this is nothing other than misunderstood role > of science and engineering. Scientists know it well, > but physicists have frequent trouble in that. ... engineers.. > -- Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer ) A wise man guards words he says, as they say about him more, than he says about the subject.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web