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

Groups > sci.physics > #605734 > unrolled thread

Odd too stupid to talk to

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:27 -0800
    Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 11:57 -0800
    Re: Odd too stupid to talk to The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-21 12:03 -0800
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:28 -0800
        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-21 22:06 -0800
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:36 -0500
        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:17 -0600
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:13 -0800
            Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 06:23 -0800
    Re: Odd too stupid to talk to moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-21 21:50 +0000
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 15:39 -0800
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-21 19:12 -0500
        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-11-22 01:45 +0000
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 16:56 -0500
        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 18:46 -0800
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-22 17:27 -0500
        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 11:50 -0600
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 10:26 -0800
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 10:50 -0800
            Re: Odd too stupid to talk to The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-24 10:33 -0800
              Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 15:36 -0800
              Re: Odd too stupid to talk to The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-25 12:59 -0800
                Re: Odd too stupid to talk to The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-26 11:34 -0800
                  Re: Odd too stupid to talk to The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-11-28 10:50 -0800
                    curvature of space not global necesserily noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 11:07 -0800
                      like  t.h.i.s noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 18:45 -0800
                        t.h.a.t, like this noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 12:45 -0800
          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-25 00:54 -0800
            Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-11-25 15:04 -0800
              Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-11-26 20:02 -0500
                Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-06 03:55 -0800
                  Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-06 17:52 -0500
                    Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 04:19 -0800
                      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 09:33 -0800
                        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 17:44 -0800
                      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-07 18:07 -0500
                        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 17:48 -0800
                          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 19:35 -0800
                            Re: Odd too stupid to talk to noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 19:45 -0800
                              Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 09:23 -0800
                                can I not call you, -nesS noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 15:48 -0800
                                  can I not call you, -nesS john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 21:13 -0800
                                    can I not call you, -nesS HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 04:12 -0800
                                      can I not call you, -nesS john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 07:23 -0800
                                        can I not call you, -nesS HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 11:22 -0800
                                          Re: can I not call you, -nesS noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 12:51 -0800
                                          Re: can I not call you, -nesS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-09 18:52 -0500
                                            Re: can I not call you, -nesS xxein1@att.net - 2016-12-09 16:50 -0800
                                              Re: Gravity is "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ). xxein1@att.net - 2016-12-10 12:28 -0800
                                            Re: can I not call you, -nesS HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 16:54 -0800
                                              Re: can I not call you, -nesS xxein1@att.net - 2016-12-09 20:37 -0800
                                                Re: We're robots.  Nature programmed us to play games. xxein1@att.net - 2016-12-10 12:49 -0800
                                              Re: can I not call you, -nesS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-10 17:59 -0500
                                                two letters noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-12-15 19:03 -0800
                                      Re: can I not call you, -nesS benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-09 18:46 -0500
                                        Re: can I not call you, -nesS HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0800
                          Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-09 18:06 -0500
                            Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 16:44 -0800
                            Re: Odd too stupid to talk to HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-12-09 16:48 -0800
                              Re: Odd too stupid to talk to benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-12-10 17:52 -0500
    Re: Odd too stupid to talk to edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 22:10 -0800
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 01:07 -0800
    Re: Odd too stupid to talk to poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 01:00 -0800
    Re: Odd too stupid to talk to kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-11-22 07:19 -0800
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 07:41 -0800
        Re: Odd too stupid to talk to moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-11-22 17:38 +0000
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-22 08:38 -0800
      Re: Odd too stupid to talk to poraty350@gmail.com - 2016-11-25 00:43 -0800

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

#606381

Star Boy says 
you guys need my genuis help... 

all things are made of atoms 

but not all of the universe contain ...things. 


maybe only a few percent contain ...anythings. 


Nothing has...no things. 

no things have no atoms. 


Now, i don't want to go above your level of understanding 
and explain to you what is contained in ....else... 
in the 'no-thing'...it's just...else. 

Maybe...just...thoughts. 
-------------

This seems like a question for our resident kooks, BJ and poor John.

Right right?

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

#606451

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:50:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > On 11/21/2016 6:12 PM, benj wrote:
> > > > So you think that asserting that "nothing" is "something" is an equation
> > > > you believe in? Is English your first language? Here, let me draw a
> > > > picture so eve you can understand it if Odd never can: "Nothing" is
> > > > defined as and entity having no properties. "Something" is an entity
> > > > that has properties.
> > > >
> > > > For example empty space has properties. Therefore it cannot be "nothing"
> > > > and must be "something".
> > >
> > > Completely agree. I know no scientist who would claim that empty space
> > > is "nothing at all".
> >
> > By definition: Einstein's SR empty space means "nothing at all".....the need  for an aether is superfluous (sp?).
> > >
> > > Nor do I know any scientist that would claim that an electron with no
> > > volume or structure but has other properties is "nothing at all".
> > >
> > > --
> > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> you guys need my genuis help...
> 
> all things are made of atoms
> 
> but not all of the universe contain ...things.
> 
> maybe only a few percent contain ...anythings.
> 
> Nothing has...no things.
> 
> no things have no atoms.
> 
> Now, i don't want to go above your level of understanding
> and explain to you what is contained in ....else...
> in the 'no-thing'...it's just...else.
> 
> Maybe...just...thoughts.


I'll make easy for yous...

take a diving suit and a space suit
they both do the same..

they both are for ...oceans/atmospheres.


a fish doesn't know it's wet..
neither do people.


Space atmosphere  
is an ocean of time
 that flows...
a wave of time.

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

#606547

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:50:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > On 11/21/2016 6:12 PM, benj wrote:
> > > > > So you think that asserting that "nothing" is "something" is an equation
> > > > > you believe in? Is English your first language? Here, let me draw a
> > > > > picture so eve you can understand it if Odd never can: "Nothing" is
> > > > > defined as and entity having no properties. "Something" is an entity
> > > > > that has properties.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example empty space has properties. Therefore it cannot be "nothing"
> > > > > and must be "something".
> > > >
> > > > Completely agree. I know no scientist who would claim that empty space
> > > > is "nothing at all".
> > >
> > > By definition: Einstein's SR empty space means "nothing at all".....the need  for an aether is superfluous (sp?).
> > > >
> > > > Nor do I know any scientist that would claim that an electron with no
> > > > volume or structure but has other properties is "nothing at all".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > you guys need my genuis help...
> >
> > all things are made of atoms
> >
> > but not all of the universe contain ...things.
> >
> > maybe only a few percent contain ...anythings.
> >
> > Nothing has...no things.
> >
> > no things have no atoms.
> >
> > Now, i don't want to go above your level of understanding
> > and explain to you what is contained in ....else...
> > in the 'no-thing'...it's just...else.
> >
> > Maybe...just...thoughts.
> 
> I'll make easy for yous...
> 
> take a diving suit and a space suit
> they both do the same..
> 
> they both are for ...oceans/atmospheres.
> 
> a fish doesn't know it's wet..
> neither do people.
> 
> Space atmosphere
> is an ocean of time
>  that flows...
> a wave of time.


of course i have no plans going to outer space and getting wet.

The Earth is floating in outer space...

maybe I'm wet now and don't know it.

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

#606853

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 12:50:51 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > > On 11/21/2016 6:12 PM, benj wrote:
> > > > > > So you think that asserting that "nothing" is "something" is an equation
> > > > > > you believe in? Is English your first language? Here, let me draw a
> > > > > > picture so eve you can understand it if Odd never can: "Nothing" is
> > > > > > defined as and entity having no properties. "Something" is an entity
> > > > > > that has properties.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example empty space has properties. Therefore it cannot be "nothing"
> > > > > > and must be "something".
> > > > >
> > > > > Completely agree. I know no scientist who would claim that empty space
> > > > > is "nothing at all".
> > > >
> > > > By definition: Einstein's SR empty space means "nothing at all".....the need  for an aether is superfluous (sp?).
> > > > >
> > > > > Nor do I know any scientist that would claim that an electron with no
> > > > > volume or structure but has other properties is "nothing at all".
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > > you guys need my genuis help...
> > >
> > > all things are made of atoms
> > >
> > > but not all of the universe contain ...things.
> > >
> > > maybe only a few percent contain ...anythings.
> > >
> > > Nothing has...no things.
> > >
> > > no things have no atoms.
> > >
> > > Now, i don't want to go above your level of understanding
> > > and explain to you what is contained in ....else...
> > > in the 'no-thing'...it's just...else.
> > >
> > > Maybe...just...thoughts.
> >
> > I'll make easy for yous...
> >
> > take a diving suit and a space suit
> > they both do the same..
> >
> > they both are for ...oceans/atmospheres.
> >
> > a fish doesn't know it's wet..
> > neither do people.
> >
> > Space atmosphere
> > is an ocean of time
> >  that flows...
> > a wave of time.
> 
> of course i have no plans going to outer space and getting wet.
> 
> The Earth is floating in outer space...
> 
> maybe I'm wet now and don't know it.



Now people ask the question..."Is the universe flat or curved?"

The answer is...it depends where you are standing.

If you're standing on a wave, it's curved. If you're standing the space
ocean where there is no wave, it's flat!

You gotta go with the flow...


Anything in the universe that contain waves..you should be able to
figure it out now.

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

#606858 — curvature of space not global necesserily

yeah, taht is the greatest screw-up of Einstein et al,
taht they do no notice that space is curved, here,
per Gausses definition, 1/diameter,
the reciprocal of the diameter

> The answer is...it depends where you are standing.
> 
> If you're standing on a wave, it's curved. If you're standing the space
> ocean where there is no wave, it's flat!
> 
> You gotta go with the flow...
> 
> 
> Anything in the universe that contain waves..you should be able to
> figure it out now.

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

#607998 — like t.h.i.s

of course,
that is allied with Minkowski's slogan about timennspacenn,
a horrible comceptual problem that dyssolves like, that

> yeah, that is the greatest screw-up of Einstein et al,
> that they do no notice that space is curved, here,
> per Gauss's definition, 1/diameter,
> the reciprocal of the diameter

or kappa times diameter is one

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

#608069 — t.h.a.t, like this

or, one over kappa is the diameter of the sphere

> or kappa times diameter is one

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

#606423

On Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 7:50:51 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 6:12 PM, benj wrote:
> > So you think that asserting that "nothing" is "something" is an equation
> > you believe in? Is English your first language? Here, let me draw a
> > picture so eve you can understand it if Odd never can: "Nothing" is
> > defined as and entity having no properties. "Something" is an entity
> > that has properties.
> >
> > For example empty space has properties. Therefore it cannot be "nothing"
> > and must be "something".
> 
> Completely agree. I know no scientist who would claim that empty space 
> is "nothing at all".
==================
 I am telling it little parrot 
that space has no properties whatsoever !!
(not curved and not schmerved)
 EXCEPT HOSTING   MASS !!
=======================================
MASS IS THE  MOTHER OF ALL FORCES -*INCLUDING GHRAVITY !!
===========================================
Y.Porat

> 
> Nor do I know any scientist that would claim that an electron with no 
> volume or structure but has other properties is "nothing at all".
-----------
with that i agree !!
the electron has volume and has structure
though  some flexible structure  
I suggested the 
EEL MODEL FOR THE ELECTRON 
ie
sub composed as a ***chin of orbitals** 
=====

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

 

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

#606470

Pora
================= 
 I am telling it little parrot 
that space has no properties whatsoever !! 
(not curved and not schmerved) 
 EXCEPT HOSTING   MASS !! 
----------

Hosting mass is a property

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

#606603

On 11/25/2016 6:04 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Pora
> =================
>  I am telling it little parrot
> that space has no properties whatsoever !!
> (not curved and not schmerved)
>  EXCEPT HOSTING   MASS !!
> ----------
>
> Hosting mass is a property
>
This is once again obvious total science ignorance!

Obviously particles (mass) are able to travel through "nothing at all" 
while waves (contrary to Odd's illogical idiot idea) require a medium to 
pass through a given space. Obviously a medium must have properties, 
while nothing at all does not. What exactly does the word "hosting" mean 
scientifically. Nuthing.

HVAC as usual has nothing.

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

#608024

BJ quacked
================= 
>  I am telling it little parrot 
> that space has no properties whatsoever !! 
> (not curved and not schmerved) 
>  EXCEPT HOSTING   MASS !! 
> ---------- 
> 
> Hosting mass is a property 
> 
This is once again obvious total science ignorance! 
-------------

Space distorts in the presence of mass... That's a property.

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

#608096

On 12/6/2016 6:55 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> =================
>>  I am telling it little parrot
>> that space has no properties whatsoever !!
>> (not curved and not schmerved)
>>  EXCEPT HOSTING   MASS !!
>> ----------
>>
>> Hosting mass is a property
>>
> This is once again obvious total science ignorance!
> -------------
>
> Space distorts in the presence of mass... That's a property.
>
Tell the doc easy on the drugs, there HVAC.

It's wonderful you agree with me for once that space has properites even 
though you said it has no propeties whatsoever?

Anyway only the curved space model distorts in the presence of mass, the 
flat space model does not. This is the beauty of math fantasy. You can 
make it say whatever you want.

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

#608135

BJ quacked 
Tell the doc easy on the drugs, there HVAC. 

It's wonderful you agree with me for once that space has properites even 
though you said it has no propeties whatsoever?
------------

Well, of course I've always said that space has properties. The fact that YOU believe in luminiferous ether as being space is not only irrelevant but it points up your belief in other kook things like ghosts and esp. You kooks CANNOT accept the fact of empty space. It blows away all your gay little beliefs. 

Right right?

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

#608156

HVAC
" up your belief in other kook things like ghosts and esp. You kooks CANNOT accept the fact of empty space. It blows away all your gay little beliefs. "

Space is "empty", but has properties.
How?

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

#608250

john
HVAC 
" up your belief in other kook things like ghosts and esp. You kooks CANNOT accept the fact of empty space. It blows away all your gay little beliefs. " 

Space is "empty", but has properties. 
How? 
-----------

Because it is space

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

#608225

On 12/7/2016 7:19 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> Tell the doc easy on the drugs, there HVAC.
>
> It's wonderful you agree with me for once that space has properites even
> though you said it has no propeties whatsoever?
> ------------
>
> Well, of course I've always said that space has properties. The fact that YOU believe in luminiferous ether as being space is not only irrelevant but it points up your belief in other kook things like ghosts and esp. You kooks CANNOT accept the fact of empty space. It blows away all your gay little beliefs.
>
> Right right?
>
Ah, Got it you side with Odd that nothing at all has properties. Logic 
isn't something either of you do, is it? Odd also believes that behavior 
is something that exists all by itself rather than being a 
characteristic of something that does the behaving. This is pure 
insanity. Easy on the Meds, there HVAC.

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

#608252

BJ quacked 
> Well, of course I've always said that space has properties. The fact that YOU believe in luminiferous ether as being space is not only irrelevant but it points up your belief in other kook things like ghosts and esp. You kooks CANNOT accept the fact of empty space. It blows away all your gay little beliefs. 
> 
> Right right? 
> 
Ah, Got it you side with Odd that nothing at all has properties. Logic 
---------------

I've never heard Mr Bodkin express that opinion. Certainly *I* never have. I simply state the fact that space has properties. Of course you cannot abide that because it would put an end to many of your kook notions. Sucks to be you

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

#608258

Give up benj.
Nothing is something but
certainly not what you
believe, no matter what that is,
but HVAC's always working 
the gay angle- I suspect he
knows lots about those 'fields '

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

#608259

the only properties of light, are waval,
no matter why you believe that a photon is a newtonion rockton,
that was completely wron, anyway, from the get-go, AFAiK

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

#608287

SpaceAce said
"the only properties of light, are waval, 
no matter why you believe that a photon is a newtonion rockton, 
that was completely wron, anyway, from the get-go, AFAiK "
Gotta BE something- waving.
Pretty girl, water, flag
Sorry- no such thing as nothing

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

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

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web