Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479238 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:58 +0000
Re: What is a field? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 11:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 14:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:39 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 17:52 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 18:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:18 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:04 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 13:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 13:53 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 14:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 14:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 23:03 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 01:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:32 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 16:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:09 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 20:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:47 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 05:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-15 14:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:04 -0500
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:30 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:12 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 17:19 +0100
Re: What is a field? Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-09 00:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:29 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 06:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:11 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:14 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-12 04:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:00 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:59 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 08:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:23 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:36 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 20:06 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:53 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 10:38 -0800
Re: What is a field? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:48 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 12:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:05 +0100
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 16:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:46 -0500
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:36 -0500
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:35 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 22:01 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:17 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 01:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:26 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:23 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 14:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:25 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:14 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:18 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:09 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:06 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:44 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 09:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:50 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:09 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:37 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:40 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 01:24 +0100
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:42 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 10:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:36 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:51 +0100
Re: What is a field? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh58k$39v$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479366 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>> >>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >> >> So what is a field in physics? > > Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > further interpretation. > >> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >> the true meaning of a field? > > You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > in physics professionally. > >> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... > > My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously thinks that’s what it’s about. > > -- > Jan > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pui5md$1o74$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479380 |
On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>> >>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>> >>> So what is a field in physics? >> >> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >> further interpretation. >> >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>> the true meaning of a field? >> >> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >> in physics professionally. >> >>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... >> >> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > > Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what > physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously > thinks that’s what it’s about. Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 06:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2e85f381-ee47-4658-aabf-6b60a17b62dd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479423 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>> > >>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > >>> > >>> So what is a field in physics? > >> > >> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > >> further interpretation. > >> > >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >>> the true meaning of a field? > >> > >> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > >> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > >> in physics professionally. > >> > >>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > >>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... > >> > >> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > > > > Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what > > physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously > > thinks that’s what it’s about. > > Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of > discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He > thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and > parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 07:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e542837e-4a03-4b3a-8a25-387fb8b39163@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479523 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > > On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > > >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > >>>> > > >>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > >>> > > >>> So what is a field in physics? > > >> > > >> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > > >> further interpretation. > > >> > > >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > > >>> the true meaning of a field? > > >> > > >> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > > >> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > > >> in physics professionally. > > >> > > >>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > > >>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... > > >> > > >> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > > > > > > Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what > > > physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously > > > thinks that’s what it’s about. > > > > Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of > > discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He > > thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and > > parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. > > Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to "debunk" them. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 08:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <802ef98b-d57f-421c-8752-faa076cfae30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479525 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > > > On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > > > >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > > >>> > > > >>> So what is a field in physics? > > > >> > > > >> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > > > >> further interpretation. > > > >> > > > >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > > > >>> the true meaning of a field? > > > >> > > > >> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > > > >> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > > > >> in physics professionally. > > > >> > > > >>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > > > >>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... > > > >> > > > >> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > > > > > > > > Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what > > > > physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously > > > > thinks that’s what it’s about. > > > > > > Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of > > > discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He > > > thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and > > > parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. > > > > Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. > > You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has > any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to > "debunk" them. You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model mechanics is based on real material interactions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 17:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pum6gg$5cf$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479532 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has >> any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to >> "debunk" them. >You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model >mechanics is based on real material interactions. No, Jan has it right. Your failed Model Mechanics is based on your fantasies, your attempted redefinitions of words such as "material", your recycling of failed ideas such as an aether (renamed as Ematrix), and your inability to understand something as simple as orbital mechanics and why the moon can orbit the earth forever with only an attractive force. You don't even have a model with equations and calculations! No wonder your DTG/Model Mechanics are complete, total, absolute failures!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pumnme$126h$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479532 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>>> On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>>>>> further interpretation. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>>>>> the true meaning of a field? >>>>>> >>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>>>>> in physics professionally. >>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>>>>> occupying all of space... >>>>>> >>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >>>>> >>>>> Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what >>>>> physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously >>>>> thinks that’s what it’s about. >>>> >>>> Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of >>>> discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He >>>> thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and >>>> parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. >>> >>> Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as >>> the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. >> >> You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has >> any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to >> "debunk" them. > > You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model > mechanics is based on real material interactions. > I’ll point out that you don’t even have a working definition of what “material” means. Note that I gave the standard meaning a day or so ago. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6792389b-e5d4-4303-b83b-724146a91a40@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479573 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:00:49 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > >>>> On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > >>>>>> further interpretation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >>>>>>> the true meaning of a field? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > >>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > >>>>>> in physics professionally. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > >>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body > >>>>>>> occupying all of space... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what > >>>>> physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously > >>>>> thinks that’s what it’s about. > >>>> > >>>> Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of > >>>> discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He > >>>> thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and > >>>> parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. > >>> > >>> Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as > >>> the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. > >> > >> You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has > >> any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to > >> "debunk" them. > > > > You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model > > mechanics is based on real material interactions. > > > > I’ll point out that you don’t even have a working definition of what > “material” means. Material in Model Mechanics: Anything that has mass and volume Anything that has structure Anything that has charge > > Note that I gave the standard meaning a day or so ago. > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pup0ep$1ol0$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479608 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:00:49 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>>>>> On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible >>>>>>>>>>> within a solid body. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>>>>>>> further interpretation. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>>>>>>> the true meaning of a field? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>>>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>>>>>>> in physics professionally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>>>>>>> occupying all of space... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what >>>>>>> physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously >>>>>>> thinks that’s what it’s about. >>>>>> >>>>>> Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of >>>>>> discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He >>>>>> thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and >>>>>> parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. >>>>> >>>>> Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as >>>>> the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. >>>> >>>> You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has >>>> any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to >>>> "debunk" them. >>> >>> You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model >>> mechanics is based on real material interactions. >>> >> >> I’ll point out that you don’t even have a working definition of what >> “material” means. > > Material in Model Mechanics: > Anything that has mass and volume > Anything that has structure > Anything that has charge Light has no mass, no volume. Light has no structure. Light has no charge. So light is not material. Yet light is physical and real. Let’s see... what else? A magnetic field has none of those things and yet is real. A radio wave has none of those things and yet is real. Heat has none of those things and yet is real. Neutrinos have none of those things and yet are real. An electron has mass and charge but it has no structure or volume. And yet electrons are real. You see? The world has known for centuries that there’s more to the physical world than material things. You’re behind by a few centuries. > > > >> >> Note that I gave the standard meaning a day or so ago. >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-12-12 04:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ffd0d7b1-f247-4fc9-ada4-c72198c3c53b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479622 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:00:49 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: > >>>>>> On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible > >>>>>>>>>>> within a solid body. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > >>>>>>>> further interpretation. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >>>>>>>>> the true meaning of a field? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > >>>>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > >>>>>>>> in physics professionally. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > >>>>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body > >>>>>>>>> occupying all of space... > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what > >>>>>>> physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously > >>>>>>> thinks that’s what it’s about. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of > >>>>>> discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He > >>>>>> thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and > >>>>>> parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. > >>>>> > >>>>> Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as > >>>>> the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. > >>>> > >>>> You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has > >>>> any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to > >>>> "debunk" them. > >>> > >>> You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model > >>> mechanics is based on real material interactions. > >>> > >> > >> I’ll point out that you don’t even have a working definition of what > >> “material” means. > > > > Material in Model Mechanics: > > Anything that has mass and volume > > Anything that has structure > > Anything that has charge > > Light has no mass, no volume. > Light has no structure. > Light has no charge. > > So light is not material. Yet light is physical and real. In my theory lights are wave-packets in the E-Matrix and thus they are not material. > > Let’s see... what else? > A magnetic field has none of those things and yet is real. But it is not material. > A radio wave has none of those things and yet is real. But it is not material. > Heat has none of those things and yet is real. But it is not material. > Neutrinos have none of those things and yet are real. Neutrinos are material because they are made of material things (the S-Particles). > An electron has mass and charge but it has no structure or volume. And yet > electrons are real. An electron is material because it is made of material thing (the S-Particles). > > You see? The world has known for centuries that there’s more to the > physical world than material things. You’re behind by a few centuries. > > > > > > > > >> > >> Note that I gave the standard meaning a day or so ago. > >> > >> -- > >> 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 | 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pur3tj$p0n$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479675 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:36 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:00:49 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 10:26:58 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:18:09 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:29:03 PM UTC-5, benj wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/8/2018 2:15 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible >>>>>>>>>>>>> within a solid body. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>>>>>>>>> further interpretation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>>>>>>>>> the true meaning of a field? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>>>>>>>>> in physics professionally. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>>>>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>>>>>>>>> occupying all of space... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ken is going to encourage you to write a book on that. His idea of what >>>>>>>>> physics is, is coming up with ideas and discussing them. He seriously >>>>>>>>> thinks that’s what it’s about. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Odd thinks physics is NOT about ideas because he is incapable of >>>>>>>> discussing any physics. He thinks math is more real than reality. He >>>>>>>> thinks physics is what is written in books that you then memorize and >>>>>>>> parrot to anyone you meet who wants to discuss actual ideas. Sad. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Odd is in a fantasy world of non-existing mathematical entities such as >>>>>>> the field/virtual particles, length contraction, time dilation....etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a hopeless case. Nothing of what you wrote in the above sentence has >>>>>> any meaning, you are referring to some fantasies of yours and then proceed to >>>>>> "debunk" them. >>>>> >>>>> You got it backward....current physics is based on fantasies, Model >>>>> mechanics is based on real material interactions. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I’ll point out that you don’t even have a working definition of what >>>> “material” means. >>> >>> Material in Model Mechanics: >>> Anything that has mass and volume >>> Anything that has structure >>> Anything that has charge >> >> Light has no mass, no volume. >> Light has no structure. >> Light has no charge. >> >> So light is not material. Yet light is physical and real. > > In my theory lights are wave-packets in the E-Matrix and thus they are not material. And as you’ve said many times, if it’s not material it can have no physical properties. But you also acknowledge that light has physical properties. So you contradict yourself. > >> >> Let’s see... what else? >> A magnetic field has none of those things and yet is real. > > But it is not material. But you say the only real things are material things. > >> A radio wave has none of those things and yet is real. > > But it is not material. But you say the only real things are material things. > >> Heat has none of those things and yet is real. > > But it is not material. But you say the only real things are material things. > >> Neutrinos have none of those things and yet are real. > > Neutrinos are material because they are made of material things (the S-Particles). You say the definition of material is having mass, volume, structure, charge. Neutrinos have none of those things. By your own definition of material they can’t be material. You contradict yourself. > >> An electron has mass and charge but it has no structure or volume. And yet >> electrons are real. > > An electron is material because it is made of material thing (the S-Particles). You say the definition of material is having mass, volume, structure, charge. Electrons have no structure or volume. By your own definition of material they can’t be material. You contradict yourself. > >> >> You see? The world has known for centuries that there’s more to the >> physical world than material things. You’re behind by a few centuries. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Note that I gave the standard meaning a day or so ago. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2018-12-09 07:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <348cb5e8-ec04-4ed0-aa20-6e40cf54193e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479366 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > > > > > This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > > > So what is a field in physics? > > Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > further interpretation. What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects to have different functions. > > > Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is the true meaning of a field? > > You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > in physics professionally. It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the interacting objects in a gravity environment. > > > In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... > > My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. Then your theory is better than
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3bcc1d31-ceb8-43fa-98a7-adffe93c48fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479458 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 10:54:41 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > > > > > > > This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > > > > > So what is a field in physics? > > > > Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > > further interpretation. > > What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects to have different functions. > > > > > Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is the true meaning of a field? > > > > You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > > necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > > in physics professionally. > > It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the interacting objects in a gravity environment. > > > > > > In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space... > > > > My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > > Then your theory is better than Then your theory is better than “functions in spacetime” eh!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puk4er$1kui$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479458 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>> >>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>> >>> So what is a field in physics? >> >> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >> further interpretation. > > What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. > For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects > to have different functions. >> >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what >>> is the true meaning of a field? >> >> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >> in physics professionally. > > It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. > ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the > interacting objects in a gravity environment. > >> >>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>> occupying all of space... >> >> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > > Then your theory is better than > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 13:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <puric4$kqq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479500 |
On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>> >>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>> >>>> So what is a field in physics? >>> >>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>> further interpretation. >> >> What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? > > That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. No, it's more likely you live in some constant fantasy world not unlike "spacetime". >> For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects >> to have different functions. >>> >>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what >>>> is the true meaning of a field? >>> >>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>> in physics professionally. >> >> It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity > > No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. Odd, how can you get on a world-wide public forum and show yourself to be such a dumb shit that even Kenseto looks like a genius in comparison? If physicists know what causes gravity, they perhaps you can deign to tell us just what the mechanism is. No, dumbfuck, "warps in spacetime" is NOT a mechanism! >> ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the >> interacting objects in a gravity environment. >> >>> >>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>> occupying all of space... >>> >>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >> >> Then your theory is better than >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <purj60$o8p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479696 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>>> >>>>> So what is a field in physics? >>>> >>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>>> further interpretation. >>> >>> What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? >> >> That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. > > No, it's more likely you live in some constant fantasy world not unlike > "spacetime". > >>> For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects >>> to have different functions. >>>> >>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what >>>>> is the true meaning of a field? >>>> >>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>>> in physics professionally. >>> >>> It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity >> >> No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. > > Odd, how can you get on a world-wide public forum and show yourself to > be such a dumb shit that even Kenseto looks like a genius in comparison? > > If physicists know what causes gravity, they perhaps you can deign to > tell us just what the mechanism is. No, dumbfuck, "warps in spacetime" > is NOT a mechanism! Well then, Ben, how about you elucidate what you think are the essential features of a “mechanism”, and thereby point out which of those essential features is lacking in the explanation offered by general relativity. > >>> ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the >>> interacting objects in a gravity environment. >>> >>>> >>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>>> occupying all of space... >>>> >>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >>> >>> Then your theory is better than >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 10:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <putvlj$2lv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479699 |
On 12/12/2018 1:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what is a field in physics? >>>>> >>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>>>> further interpretation. >>>> >>>> What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? >>> >>> That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. >> >> No, it's more likely you live in some constant fantasy world not unlike >> "spacetime". >> >>>> For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects >>>> to have different functions. >>>>> >>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what >>>>>> is the true meaning of a field? >>>>> >>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>>>> in physics professionally. >>>> >>>> It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity >>> >>> No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. >> >> Odd, how can you get on a world-wide public forum and show yourself to >> be such a dumb shit that even Kenseto looks like a genius in comparison? >> >> If physicists know what causes gravity, they perhaps you can deign to >> tell us just what the mechanism is. No, dumbfuck, "warps in spacetime" >> is NOT a mechanism! > > Well then, Ben, how about you elucidate what you think are the essential > features of a “mechanism”, and thereby point out which of those essential > features is lacking in the explanation offered by general relativity. <Benj puts on best stupid look on face and pretends to be Odd> "Well, Benj, if you are so certain that all the scientists in the world with all the theory of general relativity don't know the mechanism of gravity, they why don't YOU tell us what the real mechanism is, Huh???" You can't? Huh Huh Huh. I WIN! <scene> Odd, it is really common for really stupid people (you, journalists, libs) to flatly say that Newtons law of gravitation "explains" gravity. That only demonstrates total ignorance of science. Newton's laws "explain" nothing. They DESCRIBE the operation of gravity which is not the same thing. Likewise that is equally true for General Relativity and all that spacetime nonsense. The first step toward an explanation as John has pointed out to you many times would be to understand what kind of "push" can create the apparent "attraction" pull. Pretty much nobody has done that except for the Feynman-Wheeler theory which so far has seen virtually no efforts at verification. Indeed such studies are pretty much considered a "forbidden" topic in science. >>>> ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the >>>> interacting objects in a gravity environment. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>>>> occupying all of space... >>>>> >>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >>>> >>>> Then your theory is better than >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 08:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <379918ce-436d-4e99-b908-fbcf757e0d2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479747 |
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 10:59:51 AM UTC-5, benj wrote: > On 12/12/2018 1:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So what is a field in physics? > >>>>> > >>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > >>>>> further interpretation. > >>>> > >>>> What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? > >>> > >>> That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. > >> > >> No, it's more likely you live in some constant fantasy world not unlike > >> "spacetime". > >> > >>>> For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects > >>>> to have different functions. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what > >>>>>> is the true meaning of a field? > >>>>> > >>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > >>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > >>>>> in physics professionally. > >>>> > >>>> It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity > >>> > >>> No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. > >> > >> Odd, how can you get on a world-wide public forum and show yourself to > >> be such a dumb shit that even Kenseto looks like a genius in comparison? > >> > >> If physicists know what causes gravity, they perhaps you can deign to > >> tell us just what the mechanism is. No, dumbfuck, "warps in spacetime" > >> is NOT a mechanism! > > > > Well then, Ben, how about you elucidate what you think are the essential > > features of a “mechanism”, and thereby point out which of those essential > > features is lacking in the explanation offered by general relativity. > > <Benj puts on best stupid look on face and pretends to be Odd> > > "Well, Benj, if you are so certain that all the scientists in the world > with all the theory of general relativity don't know the mechanism of > gravity, they why don't YOU tell us what the real mechanism is, Huh???" > You can't? Huh Huh Huh. I WIN! > <scene> The mechanism for gravity is described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > Odd, it is really common for really stupid people (you, journalists, > libs) to flatly say that Newtons law of gravitation "explains" gravity. > That only demonstrates total ignorance of science. Newton's laws > "explain" nothing. They DESCRIBE the operation of gravity which is not > the same thing. Likewise that is equally true for General Relativity and > all that spacetime nonsense. > > The first step toward an explanation as John has pointed out to you many > times would be to understand what kind of "push" can create the apparent > "attraction" pull. Pretty much nobody has done that except for the > Feynman-Wheeler theory which so far has seen virtually no efforts at > verification. Indeed such studies are pretty much considered a > "forbidden" topic in science. > > >>>> ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the > >>>> interacting objects in a gravity environment. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > >>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body > >>>>>> occupying all of space... > >>>>> > >>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > >>>> > >>>> Then your theory is better than > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puu8ki$18fr$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479747 |
benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/12/2018 1:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have >>>>>> further interpretation. >>>>> >>>>> What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? >>>> >>>> That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. >>> >>> No, it's more likely you live in some constant fantasy world not unlike >>> "spacetime". >>> >>>>> For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects >>>>> to have different functions. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what >>>>>>> is the true meaning of a field? >>>>>> >>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not >>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved >>>>>> in physics professionally. >>>>> >>>>> It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity >>>> >>>> No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. >>> >>> Odd, how can you get on a world-wide public forum and show yourself to >>> be such a dumb shit that even Kenseto looks like a genius in comparison? >>> >>> If physicists know what causes gravity, they perhaps you can deign to >>> tell us just what the mechanism is. No, dumbfuck, "warps in spacetime" >>> is NOT a mechanism! >> >> Well then, Ben, how about you elucidate what you think are the essential >> features of a “mechanism”, and thereby point out which of those essential >> features is lacking in the explanation offered by general relativity. > > <Benj puts on best stupid look on face and pretends to be Odd> > > "Well, Benj, if you are so certain that all the scientists in the world > with all the theory of general relativity don't know the mechanism of > gravity, they why don't YOU tell us what the real mechanism is, Huh???" > You can't? Huh Huh Huh. I WIN! > <scene> Hey, Ben, why are you dodging the question above? It’s right up there for reference. Stay on topic. > > Odd, it is really common for really stupid people (you, journalists, > libs) to flatly say that Newtons law of gravitation "explains" gravity. > That only demonstrates total ignorance of science. Newton's laws > "explain" nothing. They DESCRIBE the operation of gravity which is not > the same thing. Likewise that is equally true for General Relativity and > all that spacetime nonsense. Answer the question about mechanisms. > > The first step toward an explanation as John has pointed out to you many > times would be to understand what kind of "push" can create the apparent > "attraction" pull. Why? Is it a feature of all true mechanisms that they involve pushes? Is that your claim? > Pretty much nobody has done that except for the > Feynman-Wheeler theory which so far has seen virtually no efforts at > verification. Indeed such studies are pretty much considered a > "forbidden" topic in science. > >>>>> ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the >>>>> interacting objects in a gravity environment. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory >>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body >>>>>>> occupying all of space... >>>>>> >>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. >>>>> >>>>> Then your theory is better than >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 13:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15e65552-3846-4ec4-91b9-f9fb8e9c7cfd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479757 |
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:32:54 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 12/12/2018 1:14 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 1:42:15 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 6:28:45 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>>>>>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> So what is a field in physics? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any function on spacetime. Depending on the theory in question, it may have > >>>>>> further interpretation. > >>>>> > >>>>> What causes material objects have different functions in spacetime? > >>>> > >>>> That’s not what he said. You can’t read English. > >>> > >>> No, it's more likely you live in some constant fantasy world not unlike > >>> "spacetime". > >>> > >>>>> For that matter what is spacetime and how does it causes material objects > >>>>> to have different functions. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what > >>>>>>> is the true meaning of a field? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You'd have to ask him. It's well-known that researchers in the field are not > >>>>>> necessarily geniuses at inventing good metaphors for people not involved > >>>>>> in physics professionally. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is more likely that physicists have no idea what causes gravity > >>>> > >>>> No, it is not more likely. It is the delusion you want to hold. > >>> > >>> Odd, how can you get on a world-wide public forum and show yourself to > >>> be such a dumb shit that even Kenseto looks like a genius in comparison? > >>> > >>> If physicists know what causes gravity, they perhaps you can deign to > >>> tell us just what the mechanism is. No, dumbfuck, "warps in spacetime" > >>> is NOT a mechanism! > >> > >> Well then, Ben, how about you elucidate what you think are the essential > >> features of a “mechanism”, and thereby point out which of those essential > >> features is lacking in the explanation offered by general relativity. > > > > <Benj puts on best stupid look on face and pretends to be Odd> > > > > "Well, Benj, if you are so certain that all the scientists in the world > > with all the theory of general relativity don't know the mechanism of > > gravity, they why don't YOU tell us what the real mechanism is, Huh???" > > You can't? Huh Huh Huh. I WIN! > > <scene> > > Hey, Ben, why are you dodging the question above? It’s right up there for > reference. Stay on topic. As you said: go read a book. > > > > > Odd, it is really common for really stupid people (you, journalists, > > libs) to flatly say that Newtons law of gravitation "explains" gravity. > > That only demonstrates total ignorance of science. Newton's laws > > "explain" nothing. They DESCRIBE the operation of gravity which is not > > the same thing. Likewise that is equally true for General Relativity and > > all that spacetime nonsense. > > Answer the question about mechanisms. > > > > > The first step toward an explanation as John has pointed out to you many > > times would be to understand what kind of "push" can create the apparent > > "attraction" pull. > > Why? Is it a feature of all true mechanisms that they involve pushes? Is > that your claim? > > > Pretty much nobody has done that except for the > > Feynman-Wheeler theory which so far has seen virtually no efforts at > > verification. Indeed such studies are pretty much considered a > > "forbidden" topic in science. > > > >>>>> ...curvature in spacetime is just a description of the paths of the > >>>>> interacting objects in a gravity environment. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory > >>>>>>> assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body > >>>>>>> occupying all of space... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> My theory assumes it's all the hippo in a pink tutu. Disney got it right. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then your theory is better than > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web