Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #592728 > unrolled thread

The New Gravity Theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-10 22:14 -0400
    Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-10 22:36 -0400
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:34 -0400
    Re: The New Gravity Theory Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-08-10 20:30 -0700
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-11 05:29 -0400
    Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:16 +0200
      Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 06:41 -0700
        Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:29 +0200
        Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:35 -0500
          Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 08:11 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:49 -0500
              Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 09:14 -0700
                Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:28 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-11 17:48 +0000
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:20 -0400
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:35 -0500
                        Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 22:30 -0400
                          Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 07:27 -0500
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:24 -0700
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:36 +0000
                      "theory of **** noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 12:38 -0700
                        "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:22 -0700
                          "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 19:33 -0700
                            Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 03:11 +0000
                              Re: "theory of **** john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 08:06 -0700
                                Re: "theory of **** Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 11:40 -0500
                                Re: "theory of **** moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-13 17:23 +0000
                                "theory of ideal gasses & beyond them noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:30 -0700
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory margaretporat@gmail.com - 2016-08-15 01:58 -0700
      Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 17:59 -0400
        Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:18 -0700
        Re: The New Gravity Theory bartekltg <bartekltg@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 14:45 +0200
    Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 10:10 -0700
      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 12:38 -0500
        Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:05 -0700
          Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:30 -0500
            Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 11:47 -0700
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 14:19 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:21 -0700
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:47 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-11 13:55 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:32 -0500
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-12 15:50 +0000
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:59 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-11 18:31 -0400
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:39 -0500
            Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 13:43 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 15:40 -0700
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:45 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 16:37 -0700
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 19:10 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 17:31 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:54 -0700
            Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-14 10:35 +0200
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:17 -0500
                Re: The New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-15 21:19 +0200
                  Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 13:26 -0500
                    Re: The New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-16 19:17 +0000
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 12:44 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-16 14:54 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-18 13:52 -0500
                        zero thus defined noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-19 11:08 -0700
                      Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-19 23:07 -0700
                        Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-20 10:14 -0500
                          Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 20:59 -0400
                          Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-20 23:00 -0700
                            Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-21 18:12 -0500
                              Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-21 23:31 -0700
                it's a military-marhcing theme noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 15:43 -0700
                  Re: it's a military-marhcing theme LIGO Fraud Investigator <mapou001@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 16:28 -0700
        Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 04:59 -0400
          Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 10:38 -0500
            Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:35 -0700
            Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:07 -0400
              Re: The New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 08:43 -0500
        Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:49 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 02:39 -0700
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-12 06:41 -0400
        Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 08:49 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 04:28 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-12 23:34 -0700
      skwaresville noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 10:35 -0700
        skwaresville john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-08-13 15:03 -0700
          Re: skwaresville moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-08-14 00:50 +0000
        Re: skwaresville poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 00:04 -0700
    Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-13 18:30 -0700
      Re: The New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-13 21:50 -0400
        Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 10:29 -0700
      Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-08-14 20:11 -0400
        Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-14 17:46 -0700
          Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-08-14 23:54 -0700
            Re: Re: The New Gravity Theory xxein1@att.net - 2016-08-15 05:52 -0700

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#592816

On 8/11/2016 3:21 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "People like me"?
> Whoa.
> Like to pigeon-hole much?
> There is me.
> There is you.
> We are each unique.
> One of us has a mind that's more
> open to new ideas.
> One of us doesn't.
>

And one of us tests new ideas against experimental observations, and the 
other one of us doesn't.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592821

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 4:47:06 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 3:21 PM, john wrote:
> > Odd
> > "People like me"?
> > Whoa.
> > Like to pigeon-hole much?
> > There is me.
> > There is you.
> > We are each unique.
> > One of us has a mind that's more
> > open to new ideas.
> > One of us doesn't.
> >
> 
> And one of us tests new ideas against experimental observations, and the 
> other one of us doesn't.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

xxein:
Observation and experimental results can often be subjective.  'Mostly', they are fit to what we are already thinking.

I have a theory that involves 5 elements.  I identify #1, #2, #3, and #5.  Now something else comes up.  Why should it be #4?  Why does it have to fit my model?  When should I realize that it might be something new that requires a different theory?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592826

On 8/11/2016 3:55 PM, xxein1@att.net wrote:
> xxein:
> Observation and experimental results can often be subjective.  'Mostly', they are fit
> to what we are already thinking.

If that's true for you, then you're doing observation and experiment wrong.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592916

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"People like me"?
>Whoa.
>Like to pigeon-hole much?
>There is me.
>There is you.
>We are each unique.
>One of us has a mind that's more
>open to new ideas.
>One of us doesn't.

The problem is, "people like you" don't subject their "new ideas" to the
scientific method or other logic.  They think that just because they thought
up an idea, it must automatically be better than existing science.
And yes, I pigeonholed you into a group, this NG is full of people who all
think like that. You with your fractals and spinny things, Archie with his
cosmic plutonium atom, the tornado guy, Ken and his IRT etc. who all fall into
this pattern.  Yes, you are all unique, each with a different idée fixe, but
you are all the same, too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592917

On 8/12/2016 10:50 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Odd
>> "People like me"?
>> Whoa.
>> Like to pigeon-hole much?
>> There is me.
>> There is you.
>> We are each unique.
>> One of us has a mind that's more
>> open to new ideas.
>> One of us doesn't.
>
> The problem is, "people like you" don't subject their "new ideas" to the
> scientific method or other logic.  They think that just because they thought
> up an idea, it must automatically be better than existing science.

I think the thinking goes like this.
A. There are ills in the word that can be associated with technology.
B. The technology originated from science. Therefore science has been at 
the root of our ills.
C. Since science shouldn't produce ills in the world if it is done 
right, then science must have gone astray somewhere.
D. If the scientific method allowed science to go astray, then the 
scientific method should be discounted.
E. The scientific method having been discounted, this leaves the field 
open to new ideas, which should be explored WITHOUT subjecting it to the 
scientific method that has corrupted science.

A variant of it goes like this.
A. Scientists are revered by the general population, especially notable 
scientists like Einstein.
B. Honor and glory should be imparted to all people, not just to a few.
C. Therefore science should be a field that is opened up to all people, 
not just those who are trained in the subject.
D. Any requirements of science on whether an idea should be treated 
seriously based on the training of the proposer, or on how it is 
formulated in terms of esoteric jargon or mathematics or access to fancy 
equipment, should be discarded as being exclusive.
E. Therefore any idea by anyone, regardless of whether it meets those 
discardable requirements, should be treated seriously, so that the 
proposer can get his due share of honor and glory.

> And yes, I pigeonholed you into a group, this NG is full of people who all
> think like that. You with your fractals and spinny things, Archie with his
> cosmic plutonium atom, the tornado guy, Ken and his IRT etc. who all fall into
> this pattern.  Yes, you are all unique, each with a different idée fixe, but
> you are all the same, too.
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592845

On 8/11/2016 3:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 1:47 PM, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> I'm not sure why you believe in
>> all the fantasies in modern day
>> Physics.
>> Point particles.
>> Suck (magic) gravity.
>> Dark matter.
>> Length contractions.
>> Random energies somehow organizing.
>> Etc.
>> Etc.
>
> Because observations support this.
>
>> But I'll give you this: you're sure stubborn!
>> No damn OBSERVATIONS are going
>> to get in the way of your beliefs.
>
> Observations are what makes me believe the above that you call fantasies.
>
>> They're all hoaxes, anyway, according to you.
>> According to you,
>> the world is FULL of hoaxers and tricksters,
>
> No, not full, but there's enough of them.
>
>> ALL spending HUGE amounts of
>> Time and energy manufacturing
>> very similar pictures and stories about
>> aliens and their craft.
>
> I'm not sure how much money you think I'm saying is involved. The
> production of the alien autopsy movie cost about $2500, according to
> Santilli. Adamski's wife described the things her husband used to build
> to fake his photos. Most were in the vicinity of a couple hundred or
> less. We're talking maybe a few hundred $k by the hoaxsters, tops. Of
> course, as they sold their stuff -- like Geller and others -- they could
> use the proceeds to create more stage craft.
>
> But time and energy, yes. A lot of people have their whole lives
> absorbed by the alien thing. Ask the people in Roswell. There are some
> people there who have spent the last 40 years, 2000 hrs/year, promoting
> aliens. That's 80,000 hours for ONE PERSON, devoted to catering to
> people like you.
>
>> Must be a scary life, Odd

Odd totally ignores the proof that government is deeply involved in UFO 
coverups and has basically limitless funds (yours) and can fake ANYTHING 
up to and including a moon landing if they so choose. Note well ODD, you 
ignorant clown, I did NOT say they faked a moon landing I said they 
COULD if they chose to. There is a difference there counselor.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592850

On 8/11/2016 5:31 PM, benj wrote:
>
> Odd totally ignores the proof that government is deeply involved in UFO
> coverups and has basically limitless funds (yours) and can fake ANYTHING
> up to and including a moon landing if they so choose. Note well ODD, you
> ignorant clown, I did NOT say they faked a moon landing I said they
> COULD if they chose to. There is a difference there counselor.

I'm curious why you think there is unlimited funds to fake anything? 
Don't you think the funds are mostly committed to other things?

And yes, your credit card company has the POWER to clean you out of 
every account you have. But they don't, do they? So the fact that there 
are people in certain positions of advantage where they could abuse, but 
they DON'T abuse, what does that mean to you?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592814

only in the limit of constructive & destructive interference

Electrons, too, interact with
> > electrons. So f. what?
> 
> No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons 
> to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon. But 
> photons do not interact with photons. So in this way, quantum 
> electrodynamics is different than quantum chromodynamics, because gluons 
> DO interact with gluons, as well as with quarks.

> It's pretty easy to show how general relativity produces the inverse 
> square law in the low-gravity limit, which is where Newtonian gravity 
> applies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592851

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:30:40 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 1:05 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> >>> Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
> >>> The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
> >>> themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.
> >>
> >> You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear
> >> interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it
> >> has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the
> >> interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles",
> >> called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons
> >> interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential
> >> regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not
> >> articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way
> >> to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions,
> >> including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions
> >> at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the
> >> universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science,
> >> anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
> >> should work.
> >
> > Bodkin, why don't you crawl back under your little rock you live under? Electrons, too, interact with
> > electrons. So fucking what?
> 
> No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons 
> to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon. But 
> photons do not interact with photons. So in this way, quantum 
> electrodynamics is different than quantum chromodynamics, because gluons 
> DO interact with gluons, as well as with quarks.

That's only because the photons emitted by an electron repel other electrons. It's not because electrons cannot interact. Electrons interact with positrons which are really electrons with a positive charge. Get a clue, moron. And stop kissing ass.
 
> > The problem with gravitons is that gravity does not behave as if the "force particles" interact with
> > themselves. Even the stupid black hole crackpottery of mainstream physics would be impossible if
> > gravitons were involved because nothing can escape a black hole by definition, including the gravitons
> > themselves.
> 
> Here is where you have simply taken a soundbite and completely 
> misunderstood what was being said. Somehow you think that theories of 
> gravitation say that gravitons are emitted from inside the event horizon 
> of a black hole and that's how matter would be attracted to the black 
> hole. But in fact this is NOT WHAT THOSE THEORIES SAY. The gravitons do 
> NOT come from the interior of the black hole at all.

And yet, the gravitational pull of a black hole supposedly reflects the entire mass of the black hole. Those are not theories. They are unicorn fairy tales for ass kissers like you.

> > Gravitons (or whatever unicorn particle you clueless bozos can think of) would be accelerated at
> > twice the rate of massive particles if they existed.
> 
> Another sound bite where you have completely misunderstood what was 
> being said.

Fuck you, you gutless asshole. I ain't your dog.
 
> > Think about it. How would you get an inverse
> > square law from this crap?
> 
> It's pretty easy to show how general relativity produces the inverse 
> square law in the low-gravity limit, which is where Newtonian gravity 
> applies.

And what the fuck does this have to do with gravitons? Keep licking ass, maggot, and see if I give a shit. LOL

> > Modern physics is sitting on a mountain of crap. Physicists wallow in the crap with a smile on their faces.
> 
> I think all that you've demonstrated, Louis, is that you are only 
> capable of misreading soundbites from magazine articles and an 
> occasional web page, and then running with that misreading straight into 
> the weeds. It's like you get in a truck and drive it badly on the 
> highway, having no clue how to make the think work right, and when you 
> topple the truck over into a ditch, you get out and say, "See? I told 
> you this truck is a broken piece of shit!"

What you have demonstrated is that you are an ass kisser and a mental midget. But then again, the physics community is full of those. They're like a nest of snakes. They carry their reptilian morality on their sleeves. But every BS must come to an end sooner or later.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592853

On 8/11/2016 5:40 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 11:30:40 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 8/11/2016 1:05 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
>>>>> Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
>>>>> The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
>>>>> themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.
>>>>
>>>> You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear
>>>> interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it
>>>> has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the
>>>> interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles",
>>>> called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons
>>>> interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential
>>>> regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not
>>>> articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way
>>>> to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions,
>>>> including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions
>>>> at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the
>>>> universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science,
>>>> anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
>>>> should work.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, why don't you crawl back under your little rock you live under? Electrons, too, interact with
>>> electrons. So fucking what?
>>
>> No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons
>> to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon. But
>> photons do not interact with photons. So in this way, quantum
>> electrodynamics is different than quantum chromodynamics, because gluons
>> DO interact with gluons, as well as with quarks.
>
> That's only because the photons emitted by an electron repel other electrons.

Nope.

> It's not because electrons cannot interact.

Bullshit.

> Electrons interact with positrons which are really electrons with a positive
> charge. Get a clue, moron. And stop kissing ass.

No, they're not.

>
>>> The problem with gravitons is that gravity does not behave as if the "force particles" interact with
>>> themselves. Even the stupid black hole crackpottery of mainstream physics would be impossible if
>>> gravitons were involved because nothing can escape a black hole by definition, including the gravitons
>>> themselves.
>>
>> Here is where you have simply taken a soundbite and completely
>> misunderstood what was being said. Somehow you think that theories of
>> gravitation say that gravitons are emitted from inside the event horizon
>> of a black hole and that's how matter would be attracted to the black
>> hole. But in fact this is NOT WHAT THOSE THEORIES SAY. The gravitons do
>> NOT come from the interior of the black hole at all.
>
> And yet, the gravitational pull of a black hole supposedly reflects the entire mass of the black hole.

Yes, this STILL doesn't mean that the gravitons come from inside the 
black hole.

> Those are not theories. They are unicorn fairy tales for ass kissers like you.
>
>>> Gravitons (or whatever unicorn particle you clueless bozos can think of) would be accelerated at
>>> twice the rate of massive particles if they existed.
>>
>> Another sound bite where you have completely misunderstood what was
>> being said.
>
> Fuck you, you gutless asshole. I ain't your dog.

You're certainly not. But you still have misunderstood the sound bite.

>
>>> Think about it. How would you get an inverse
>>> square law from this crap?
>>
>> It's pretty easy to show how general relativity produces the inverse
>> square law in the low-gravity limit, which is where Newtonian gravity
>> applies.
>
> And what the fuck does this have to do with gravitons? Keep licking ass,
> maggot, and see if I give a shit. LOL

Gravitons are the quantization of general relativity, you idiot.

>
>>> Modern physics is sitting on a mountain of crap. Physicists wallow in the crap with a smile on their faces.
>>
>> I think all that you've demonstrated, Louis, is that you are only
>> capable of misreading soundbites from magazine articles and an
>> occasional web page, and then running with that misreading straight into
>> the weeds. It's like you get in a truck and drive it badly on the
>> highway, having no clue how to make the think work right, and when you
>> topple the truck over into a ditch, you get out and say, "See? I told
>> you this truck is a broken piece of shit!"
>
> What you have demonstrated is that you are an ass kisser and a mental midget. But then
> again, the physics community is full of those. They're like a nest of snakes. They carry
> their reptilian morality on their sleeves. But every BS must come to an end sooner or later.

Reptilian morality? Do tell.

>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592859

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 3:45:30 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>[impossibly stupid crap deleted]

Fuck you.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592862

On 8/11/2016 6:37 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 3:45:30 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> [impossibly stupid crap deleted]
>
> Fuck you.
>
> ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
>

Can't help it if you just do not understand anything about modern 
physics, and you push off any attempt to correct your mistakes with 
"Fuck you". Howzatworkinforya, rebel?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592864

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 5:10:35 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> [more crap deleted]

Eat shit, asshole.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#592888

בתאריך יום חמישי, 11 באוגוסט 2016 בשעה 21:30:40 UTC+3, מאת Odd Bodkin:
> On 8/11/2016 1:05 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 10:38:16 AM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 8/11/2016 12:10 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
> >>> Any gravity theory that posits a "flux" of force particles is dead on arrival.
> >>> The reason is that gravity affects everything including the flux particles
> >>> themselves, thereby resulting in an infinite self-referential regress. Not even wrong.
> >>
> >> You may be interested in a highly verified theory of the strong nuclear
> >> interactions called quantum chromodynamics. Introduced in the 1960's, it
> >> has had five decades of experimental test and verification. One of the
> >> interesting features of this theory is that the "force particles",
> >> called gluons, also feel the strong nuclear interaction. That is, gluons
> >> interact with gluons. This is what I gather you call "self-referential
> >> regress", something you think cannot possibly be (for some reason not
> >> articulated). However, this aspect of QCD turns out to be the only way
> >> to explain some of the observed phenomenology of strong interactions,
> >> including jets of secondary particles in high transverse-pT collisions
> >> at particle accelerators. Thus something you think cannot be true of the
> >> universe does in fact appear to be true in experiment. In science,
> >> anyway, experiment trumps all human expectations of how the universe
> >> should work.
> >
> > Bodkin, why don't you crawl back under your little rock you live under? Electrons, too, interact with
> > electrons. So fucking what?
> 
> No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons 
> to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon. But 
> photons do not interact with photons. 
===================
imbecile parrot !
messenger of God !!
who told you parrot that photons do not act with photons ???

Y.Porat
============================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593112

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/11/2016 1:05 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
>> Electrons, too, interact with electrons. […]
> 
> No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons
> to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon.

How did you get that idea?

> But photons do not interact with photons.

How did you get that idea?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593206

On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 8/11/2016 1:05 PM, LIGO Fraud Investigator wrote:
>>> Electrons, too, interact with electrons. […]
>>
>> No, they don't. They interact with PHOTONS. The only path for electrons
>> to interact with electrons is through an intermediary photon.
>
> How did you get that idea?

Correction: the only path for electrons to interact electromagnetically 
with electrons is through an intermediary photon (where the photon 
itself may have internal loop diagrams).

>
>> But photons do not interact with photons.
>
> How did you get that idea?
>

Photons only interact with charged particles.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593250

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> But photons do not interact with photons.
>> How did you get that idea?
> 
> Photons only interact with charged particles.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593400

On 8/15/2016 2:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
>> On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> But photons do not interact with photons.
>>> How did you get that idea?
>>
>> Photons only interact with charged particles.
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics>
>

Right, and take a look at the Feynman diagrams in that article. Do you 
see any photon-photon vertices? No. What you see is a 
photon-charged-particle vertex, so that photons interact with photons 
only via a charged particle intermediary.

Photons only interact with things bearing electric charge.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593405

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 8/15/2016 2:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> But photons do not interact with photons.
>>>> How did you get that idea?
>>>
>>> Photons only interact with charged particles.
>>
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics>
>>

>Right, and take a look at the Feynman diagrams in that article. Do you 
>see any photon-photon vertices? No. What you see is a 
>photon-charged-particle vertex, so that photons interact with photons 
>only via a charged particle intermediary.

>Photons only interact with things bearing electric charge.

Yes, photons don't interact with photons directly. However, a photon
could become a virtual e+e- pair momentarily and a second  photon
could interact with the e+ or e- before they annihilate into the
first photon again. Kind of like Hawking radiation starts out as
a virtual e+e- pair.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#593407

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 3:19:01 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On 8/15/2016 2:19 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 8/14/2016 3:35 AM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>>> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> But photons do not interact with photons.
> >>>> How did you get that idea?
> >>>
> >>> Photons only interact with charged particles.
> >>
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics>
> 
> >Right, and take a look at the Feynman diagrams in that article. Do you 
> >see any photon-photon vertices? No. What you see is a 
> >photon-charged-particle vertex, so that photons interact with photons 
> >only via a charged particle intermediary.
> 
> >Photons only interact with things bearing electric charge.

Only? No.

Why are you so blind to Engineering/Science/Physics==E/S/P==ESP, Odd?
Photons do jump to higher and lower quantum states within an atom itself.
Did you Odd sleep through a couple of years of Quantum Physics' lectures?
 
> Yes, photons don't interact with photons directly. However, a photon
> could become a virtual e+e- pair momentarily and a second  photon
> could interact with the e+ or e- before they annihilate into the
> first photon again. Kind of like Hawking radiation starts out as
> a virtual e+e- pair.

Deflecting a question, with however many mirrors, is kind of cute.

Why are you so blind to Engineering/Science/Physics==E/S/P==ESP, MM?
Photons do jump to higher and lower quantum states within an atom itself.
Did you MM sleep through a couple of years of Quantum Physics' lectures?

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: d(me) != 0 ... me alwa(y)s changes...”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web