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 168 — 16 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? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 08:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-17 08:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 09:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 10:06 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 02:23 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 12:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-19 15:46 +0000
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? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-13 12:16 -0800
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 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 12:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4c75ef60-79c0-45e3-85c0-2afad7b06db1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480137 |
On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 7:41:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > >> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > >>>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > >>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > >>>>>>>> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > >>>>>>>> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Yes that’s right > > >>>> > > >>>> No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > > >>> > > >>> Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. > > >> > > >> You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings > > >> of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) > > > > > > Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. > > > > You don’t know enough about them to classify them as abstract mathematical > > objects. > > Even your SR brothers agree that they are math constructs. > > > > > > > >> > > >>>>> physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy > > >>>>> and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, > > >>>>> extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length > > >>>>> contraction and time dilation...etc. > > >>>> > > >>>> Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. > > >>> > > >>> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black > > >> > > >> Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally > > >> 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who > > >> devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something > > >> you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. > > > > > > Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a > > > TOE. I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress. > > > > It’s not a TOE for two reasons. > > 1. It’s not a theory, as scientists would recognize that term. > > 2. It doesn’t explain everything. I’ve asked you to show how it explains > > thermodynamics. Response? Nothing. > > 1. You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. > 2. Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a TOE. It explains nothing. For example: explain the shape of the electric field E radiated by a charge moving along the x-axis as: x(t) = sqrt(b^2 + c^2 t^2). (c is the speed of light as usual, b is a constant, so x(t) is a hyperbola in the xt-plane). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvdjt9$scd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480137 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in >>>>>>>>>> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything >>>>>>>>>> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes that’s right >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. >>>> >>>> You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings >>>> of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) >>> >>> Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. >> >> You don’t know enough about them to classify them as abstract mathematical >> objects. > > Even your SR brothers agree that they are math constructs. You’re quoting newsgroup babble. You don’t know enough about what PHYSICISTS say about them to classify them. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>>> physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy >>>>>>> and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, >>>>>>> extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length >>>>>>> contraction and time dilation...etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. >>>>> >>>>> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black >>>> >>>> Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally >>>> 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who >>>> devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something >>>> you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. >>> >>> Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a >>> TOE. I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress. >> >> It’s not a TOE for two reasons. >> 1. It’s not a theory, as scientists would recognize that term. >> 2. It doesn’t explain everything. I’ve asked you to show how it explains >> thermodynamics. Response? Nothing. > > 1. You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. > 2. Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a TOE. > Already discussed. You have a notion of “theory” that is much different than what scientists describe. Your idea does not explain thermodynamics. Prove me wrong. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-19 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pvdp40$nfq$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #480210 |
Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes: >kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> 1. You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. >> 2. Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a TOE. >> >Already discussed. You have a notion of “theory” that is much different >than what scientists describe. Your idea does not explain thermodynamics. >Prove me wrong. Ken can't even explain the three rocket problem I gave him some time ago, much less thermodynamics. Heck, he can't even explain (-6)/(-2)!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 13:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <puriib$lga$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479501 |
On 12/9/2018 5:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:56:22 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>>>>> the true meaning of a field? >>>>>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, >>>>>> it didn’t work for you. >>>>> >>>>> It works for me very well. >>>> >>>> You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. >>>> >>>>> It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, >>>> >>>> Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. >>>> >>>>> the most successful theory of physics. >>>> >>>> Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. >>>> >>> >>> Ken is beyond recognizing that point. He’s too heavily invested. >>> >>> Ken’s stance is essentially this: “I, Ken Seto, have an idea of what a >>> physical theory should be like. What physicists think a physical idea >>> should be like is irrelevant. What I know is that every theory produced by >>> physicists so far doesn’t matter measure up to MY idea of a physical >>> theory. They don’t make sense, they don’t use plain language, they’re >>> complicated, they involve non-intuitive ideas. None of those traits should >>> belong to a good physical theory. On the other hand, MY theory completely >>> satisfies everything I think a theory should be. It is therefore in MY EYES >>> the most successful theory ever. And if physicists don’t agree about the >>> value of what I’ve produced, that’s their loss.” >> >> Idiot....current theories are based on fantasy and non-existing mathematical objects. > > That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > really a sign of a sane person. > >> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > > I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > smaller list of things you’re familiar with. That right Kenseto, Odd is sure that in 400 years science has discovered that tinkerbell is real, ghosts are real, and numbers are real material actual objects! Science has not yet discovered however just what a moron Odd is <snicker> I am looking for a "2" I'm sure I left it lying around here somewhere....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 23:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pui5om$1o74$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479381 |
On 12/8/2018 2:18 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>> the true meaning of a field? >>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, >>> it didn’t work for you. >> >> It works for me very well. > > You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > >> It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, > > Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. > >> the most successful theory of physics. > > Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. > Hey, Obama and ALGore got one, so there goes any credibility of your position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 08:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <da8ed989-100e-411a-a7ff-cf1bdf250dc2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479381 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:18:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >>> the true meaning of a field? > >> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, > >> it didn’t work for you. > > > > It works for me very well. > > You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. Moron, I was competent to formulate a better theory. Gee you are stupid. > > > It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, > > Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. So you don’t know the meaning of the word “formulation”. > > > the most successful theory of physics. > > Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. > > -- > PointedEars > > Twitter: @PointedEars2 > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 17:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <685b82fb-7fc1-c7b1-4d1e-80d773df17b0@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479461 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:18:33 PM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>>> the true meaning of a field? >>>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, >>>> it didn’t work for you. >>> It works for me very well. >> You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > > Moron, I did not call you names, did I? > I was competent to formulate a better theory. You have formulated your fantasies, not a (physical) theory, and certainly not a better one. Your writing is full of false premises to begin with. But AISB, you are not competent enough to see your mistakes. > Gee you are stupid. LOL. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 00:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puhnqv$1396$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479357 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney >> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. >> Obviously, it didn’t work for you. > > It works for me very well. It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, the > most successful theory of physics. What's the matter, Dr. Kenseto, don't you yet know, that you can't change physics without alone. Even Dr. Einstein had his Roy Masters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 10:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4f8cbd6-a47e-4486-8d4f-7e74e47a866a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479329 |
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. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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]
Page 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web